1:13-cv-01861 #115.attachments Part 1

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 408
EXHIBIT PX-01
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, FREDIA HURDLE and LYNN HURDLE, EDWIN HILL and DAVID PALMER, HEATHER POEHLER and KATH POEHLER, FERNANDO CHANG-MUY and LEN RIESER, DAWN PLUMMER and DIANA POLSON, ANGELA GILLEM and GAIL LLOYD, HELENA MILLER and DARA RASPBERRY, RON GEBHARDTSBAUER and GREG WRIGHT, MARLA CATTERMOLE and JULIA LOBUR, SANDY FERLANIE and CHRISTINE DONATO, MAUREEN HENNESSEY, and A.W. AND K.W., minor children, by and through their parents and next friends, DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL WOLF, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Health; DAN MEUSER, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Revenue; and DONALD PETRILLE, JR., in his official capacity as Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court of Bucks County, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
EXPERT REPORT OF M. V. LEE BADGETT, PH.D.
EXPERT BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS 1. I have been retained by counsel for plaintiffs in Whitewood et al v. Wolf et al. to
provide my expert opinions concerning the economic impact of the exclusion from marriage on Pennsylvanias same-sex couples and their children, as well as the economic impact of the exclusion on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its cities and counties, and the business community. I have also been asked to respond to the statements made by defendants in this litigation and in the legislative record regarding potential economic impacts that may result from the elimination of the marriage exclusion. The opinions expressed in this report are my true opinions as an expert on the intersections of economics, sexual orientation, and public policy. 2. This report is based on my personal specialized knowledge, informed by my
education and experience as an economist and policy analyst, and by my familiarity with relevant scholarly work by other scholars on the topic of marriage and family. My background, experience, and list of publications are summarized in my curriculum vitae, appended to this report as Exhibit A. I have actual knowledge of the matters stated in this expert report and could and would so testify if called as a witness. 3. I am a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where I
have taught since 1997. I also serve as the Universitys Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration. I am currently a Williams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law, where I served as research director from 2006 to 2013. From 2005 to 2007, I was a visiting professor at UCLA School of Law. Prior to those positions, from 1990 to 1997 I was an assistant professor of Public Affairs at the School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park. I have conducted research at the Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, and conducted research and taught at the Womens Studies and Lesbian and Gay Studies programs of Yale University. I received my A.B. in Economics from the University of Chicago in 1982 and my Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1990.
4.
The primary focus of my research and teaching is in the fields of Economics and
Public Policy, including Microeconomics, Labor Economics, and Sexual Orientation and Economics; and Sexual Orientation and Public Policy, including sexual orientation discrimination, family structures and family policy, same-sex partner recognition in the US and Europe, domestic partner health care and pension benefits, and the health insurance status of lesbians and gay men. 5. I am the author of two books and the co-editor of a third on sexual orientation
economics and public policy: Money, Myths and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men (2001); Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective (2007); and When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage (2009). I have also authored numerous published articles and book chapters, as set forth in my curriculum vitae. 6. In the past four years, I have testified as an expert through declaration, deposition or
trial in Bassett v. Snyder, Case No. 2:12-cv-10038 (E.D. Mich.); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal.); Glossip v. Missouri Dept of Transp. and Highway Patrol Employees Ret. Sys., No. 10-CC00434 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole County); Diaz v. Brewer, Case No. CV09-2402-PHX-JWS (previously captioned Collins v. Brewer) (D. Ariz.); Sevcik v. Sandoval, Case No. 2:12-CV-00578RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.); Darby v. Orr, Lazaro v. Orr, Nos. 12 CH 019718 & 12 CH 019719 (Circuit Ct., Cook County, Illinois); Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-00217 (D. Utah); and Harris v. McDonnell, No. 5:13-cv-00077-MFU (W.D. Vir.). 7. In preparing this report, I reviewed the materials listed in the attached list of
References (Exhibit B). I may rely on those documents, in addition to the documents specifically cited as supportive examples in particular sections of this report, as additional support for my opinions. The materials I have relied on in preparing this report are the same types of materials that experts in my field of study regularly rely upon when forming opinions on the subject. I have also relied on my years of experience in this field, as set out in my curriculum vitae (Exhibit A), and on the materials listed therein.
8.
I am being compensated at an hourly rate for actual time devoted, at the rate of
$150.00 per hour for deposition and trial testimony only; I am not being compensated for preparing this report. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide. I. SUMMARY OF EXPERT OPINIONS 9. The marriage exclusion imposes substantial economic harms on same-sex couples
residing in Pennsylvania and their children in many ways. The inability of same-sex couples to marry or, if they married in other jurisdictions, to have their marriages recognized in Pennsylvania, deprives them and their families of significant direct and indirect benefits provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, causing them to experience such economic harms as increased taxes, increased transaction costs in obtaining legal protections, and loss of or more expensive health care benefits. Because of the marriage exclusion in Pennsylvania, same-sex couples are denied certain federal rights and benefits, and even those who are married may still not be able to access some of those federal protections. 10. The marriage exclusion also imposes substantial costs on Pennsylvania itself, its
counties and cities. First, the state and local subdivisions lose significant tax and fee revenue that, but for the marriage exclusion, would accrue as a result of weddings of same-sex couples. Second, denial of marriage to same-sex partners results in additional state spending on TANF and Medical Assistance. These additional expenditures and lost tax revenue outweigh the additional tax revenue generated by unequal treatment of same-sex couples. 11. The denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples also has implications for
Pennsylvanias business communities through harms associated with difficulty recruiting and retaining highly productive workers, and forcing businesses that do provide domestic partnership benefits to do so at the cost of increased payroll taxes, shares of which are often paid by both employees and employers. In fact, many employers have publicly stated that giving same-sex couples the right to marry is important to their ability to recruit and retain highly productive
workers and to foster an optimal and more productive work environment. Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion undermines those efforts by Pennsylvania businesses. 12. Because of the marriage exclusion, over the next three years, the Commonwealths
economy will lose $65-99 million in wedding-related business. Pennsylvania also will lose $4.2-5.8 million in tax revenue over the next three years that would have accrued as a result of weddings by same-sex couples, and each year the state will pay $1.8 million in additional Medicaid expenses and $1.9 million in additional TANF costs. These figures far outweigh the revenue gains the Commonwealth is currently experiencing as a result of discriminatory taxation on same-sex couples, which I estimate to be $4.1 million per year. Moreover, these figures do not include the widely-recognized but more difficult to quantify economic losses, such as the loss of creative class workers and the additional expenses and administrative inefficiencies for businesses that try to remediate this problem by providing domestic partner benefits to their employees. 13. Finally, I have reviewed defendants statements in this litigation and the legislative
record regarding supposed economic consequences the state would experience in the absence of a statute banning marriage for same-sex couples. The statements in the legislative history are cursory and do not indicate any rational analysis from an economists point of view, and I have found no empirical support for those statements. In fact, to the contrary, the net economic impact to the state would be positive if it would allow and recognize marriage for same-sex couples, even without the ability to quantify more intangible issues such as creative class loss in Pennsylvania. 14. II. I may supplement these opinions and analyses as new information is provided to me.
OPINIONS AND THEIR BASES A. Background. 1. I Have Seen No Study By Pennsylvania Reaching Any Conclusions of Supposed Adverse Economic Consequences to the State for Recognizing and Allowing Marriages of Same-Sex Couples.
15.
I have reviewed the responses by defendants to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories,
including their statements that the legislative history suggests that the General Assembly would
have reasonable cause for concern that redefining marriage would bring about adverse economic consequences (Response to Interrogatory No. 2) and that the legislative history suggests that the General Assembly would have reasonable cause for concern that redefining marriage would detrimentally affect Pennsylvania businesses (Response to Interrogatory No. 3). I address the stated rationales in the legislative history further in section D of my opinions. 16. I note here that some statements in the legislative record indicate the General
Assembly had not studied or even fully contemplated the economic impacts of allowing same-couples to marry. Senator Afflerbach stated that a statute prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples would enable more time for Pennsylvania to conduct a study of the economic dislocations that would occur if [Pennsylvania] were to permit same-gender marriages that we have not even begun to conceive at this point (1996 Legis. J. Senate 2454.) Representative Egolf stated, The financial costs imposed on society by the forced recognition of same-sex marriage cannot even be calculated at this time. (1996 Legis. J. House 2017). I understand that if any such study had been conducted by Pennsylvania in the 18 years since 1996, that Plaintiffs discovery requests would have required the defendants to produce such studies, but that no such study has been produced by defendants. In fact, the only documents I am aware of that indicate any sort of analysis by Pennsylvania of the economic impacts of recognizing same-sex relationships is that Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust Fund (PEBTF), actually decided that Pennsylvania should provide domestic partnership benefits to qualifying same-sex couple employees. As referenced in paragraph 80, PEBTF stated that it decided to provide domestic partnership health benefits after it had cost[ed] things out and that one of the primary reasons for providing such benefits was to be competitive with other employers. 17. Had Pennsylvania conducted such a study as referenced in 1996, I would have
reviewed it and provided my opinions regarding any analysis contained in such a study. I have, however, reviewed and analyzed other publicly available studies, information, and data, in reaching my conclusions in this report.
2. 18.
Brief Summary of Economic Principles of Marriage.
Economists and other scholars have suggested several ways that marriage promotes
interdependence and enhances economic efficiency for couples through a series of benefits and obligations and, therefore, enhances economic efficiency for society as a whole, too. 19. In general, marriage provides a legal framework for living an interdependent
economic life. In practice, the contractual nature of civil marriage is set forth and promoted by laws that set default ground rules that are understood or accepted, and marriage facilitates a more efficient use of time and money resources for families than is likely in the absence of the ability to marry. 20. More specifically, marriage can enhance a couples economic efficiencies in the
following ways: 21. Promoting Specialization of Labor: Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker
has argued that the marriage contract allows for increasing household efficiency (Becker, 1991). Partners pool time and money, and then divide up their labor in ways that increase the familys productivity in producing goods and services for family members. Without the presumed long-term nature of the relationship that marriage implies, as well as the division of marital property and the possibility of spousal support payments if a marriage ends, specialization by either party would not necessarily be efficient for individuals in the long-term. For instance, marriage gives couples the economic security to make decisions about education and labor force participation knowing that one spouse can provide the primary economic support if the other can contribute less cash income to the family. If the relationship ends, a spouse who has sacrificed some earning potential will be eligible for spousal support payments and a share of marital property to compensate him or her for those financial losses. 22. Reducing Transaction Costs: Marriage also promotes economic efficiency through
reducing transaction costs for couples, removing the need to renegotiate the terms of the legal relationship as couples experience changed circumstances (e.g., acquiring property or goods together, increasing or decreasing in wealth, or having children) (Pollak, 1985).
23.
Providing Social Insurance: Marriage also facilitates wealth and income pooling
across individuals and within families, which provides insurance against bad times, such as a disability or death or the loss of a job (Pollak, 1985). 24. Taking Advantage of Economies of Scale: By encouraging larger household sizes,
marriage helps families take advantage of economies of scale. In other words, doubling the inputs of time and other resources in some tasks results in more than double the output of family-related goods and services (Nelson, 1988). 25. Signaling Commitment: In addition, the willingness to marry is an important signal
of commitment to a relationship (Eskridge, 1996; Badgett, 2009). Through the decision to marry, each partner signals greater effort to maintain the relationship, a greater likelihood that the relationship will endure, and an agreement to make a fair settlement if, despite the good intentions of the parties, the relationship should end. The commitment to a long-term relationship and the rules for distribution of assets and income should the relationship end underlie the specialization, transaction costs, and social insurance functions of marriage. 26. Promoting The Provision Of Caring Labor: The long-term nature of the marital
commitment promotes reciprocity and altruism, as partners take care of one another and any children they might be raising together. The unpaid work done in families is essential for the survival of healthy human beings (Folbre, 1995). 27. According to these scholars of the family, the legal institution of marriage promotes
efficiency at the family level and therefore at the social level. Both individual couples and societies have an incentive to seek out and utilize this relatively efficient institution. 28. Same-sex couples without civil marriage rights and obligations can and do attempt to
replicate these economic aspects of marriage. However, as addressed in this report, any such replication is obtained less efficiently and is more costly than if these couples could rely upon the status of civil marriage. For example, to obtain health care decision-making rights for one another (e.g., at times of incapacity and death), same-sex couples require specialized legal documents, often at the cost of hiring an attorney. Civil marriage, however, grants automatic, default rights to
spouses to make such decisions for each other. In other areas, full replication of these economic efficiencies of civil marriage cannot be obtained at all. For example, the spousal exemption from inheritance taxes protects surviving spouses in recognized marriages. Regardless of their estate planning attempts, same-sex couples cannot fully protect themselves from potentially huge and devastating economic losses from paying such taxes, which often are due at a time when the surviving partner is most vulnerable (e.g., older and potentially out of the workforce, as well as dealing with loss of a loved one). 3. Characteristics of the Population of Pennsylvanias Same-Sex Couples and Their Families.
29.
For purposes of the demographic information in this report, I use the term same-sex
couple to mean two people of the same sex who live together and indicated on a Bureau of the Census survey that they are either unmarried partners or spouses. Because the U.S. Census Bureau has changed some of its data collection practices, there are two different sources of information about same-sex couples in Pennsylvania used in this report. The first source is the 2012 American Community Survey, which is a survey of about 2 million U.S. households per year. The second source is the 2010 Census, which consisted of a short questionnaire with minimal demographic data and no long form for any households. In its analysis of the 2010 Census data, the Census Bureau made corrections to some of the questions used to generate the count of same-sex unmarried partner couples, and in this report I use the counts that are labeled by the Census Bureau as their preferred estimates of same-sex couples for the most up-to-date count of same-sex couples in Pennsylvania (Lofquist et al., 2012). 30. The Census Bureau counted 22,336 same-sex couples living together in
Pennsylvania in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Tables, 2011, App Tab 6b). Same-sex couples comprised at least 0.4% of all households in Pennsylvania (Lofquist, et al., 2012). Approximately 16% of these same-sex couples in Pennsylvania are raising children under the age of 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, Supplemental Tables, 2011).
31.
Additional findings about same-sex couples living in Pennsylvania are available
from the 2012 American Community Survey. People in same-sex couples are active contributors to Pennsylvanias economy, culture, and future: 69% are employed and 6% are veterans, compared with 65% of people in married different-sex couples who are employed (not statistically significantly different from the percentage employed among same-sex couples) and 12% of whom are veterans (statistically significantly different from the percentage of veterans among same-sex couples). Approximately 3.1% of adopted children in Pennsylvania live with a lesbian or gay parent (Gates, Badgett, Macomber, and Chambers 2007). 32. Relevant data also indicates that same-sex couples engage in interdependent lives.
For example, there are often large disparities between the individual incomes of both members of a same-sex couple in Pennsylvania. In the average same-sex couple living in Pennsylvania in the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), the average difference in total individual incomes between the two partners was $51,686, which is somewhat higher than the average difference of $46,392 for married couples but the difference is not statistically significant. The medians for the within-couple income difference were also close: $26,500 for same-sex couples and $26,900 for different-sex couples. Both measures suggest a high degree of interdependence among same-sex couples since the disparities would likely be generated by interdependent or joint decision-making. Some of the interdependent decisions that might result in these disparities include deciding together how many hours each partner will work, whether each partner participates in the paid labor force, how much time each partner spends in child rearing, etc. However, same-sex couples are making these joint decisions without the protections, such as marital property, provided for by marriage. 33. Couples also care for each other when one partner is aging, sick or disabled. In 19%
of same-sex couples in Pennsylvania, one or both partners are 65 or older. (The figure for married different-sex couples is 25% and is not statistically significantly different.) In 28% of same-sex couples (and 20% of married couples, statistically significantly different), at least one member of the couple has a disability. In these couples, members may be taking on the responsibility to
provide for or care for a senior or disabled member. However, when they do so they are not afforded the support that marriage would provide under Pennsylvania law. B. Pennsylvanias Marriage Exclusion Imposes Substantial Costs on SameSex Couples And Their Families.
34.
The marriage exclusion deprives same-sex couples and their children of significant
economic benefits associated with marriage. Some of these benefits, such as exemption from certain taxes, the right to inherit from an intestate spouse, the automatic right to make medical decisions for a spouse, or to have automatic recognition of a child born in the relationship, are provided at the state level. Other benefits come from the federal government, but some are available only to married couples whose marriages are recognized in the state in which they reside (e.g., the right to receive Family Medical Leave Act rights). 35. In this section, I address the costs imposed on two groups of same-sex couples living
in Pennsylvania: (1) same-sex couples who wish to marry in Pennsylvania and have not married elsewhere (unmarried couples) and (2) same-sex couples who have married in another state (couples married in another state) and therefore receive at least some federal, but not state, rights and benefits of marriage. 36. Subsection (1) outlines some of the direct costs imposed by the Pennsylvania
marriage exclusions on both same-sex unmarried couples and same-sex couples married in another state: (a) increased taxes, including inheritance taxes, realty transfer taxes, and income taxes; (b) increased transaction costs in obtaining legal documents in an attempt to cure some of the exposures same-sex couples face as a result of the marriage exclusion; and (c) the loss or increased difficulty of obtaining valuable employment-related benefits, such as health insurance coverage. 37. Subsection (2) briefly outlines the federal economic benefits that unmarried same-
sex couples are deprived of in the state of Pennsylvania.
10
1.
Pennsylvanias Marriage Exclusion Imposes Substantial Statelevel Costs on Unmarried Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex Couples Married in Another State.
38.
The total cost to the significant number of unmarried same-sex couples and same-sex
couples married in another state is substantial and takes a variety of forms, including: a. 39. Increased Tax Liabilities for Same-Sex Couples.
This section addresses some common taxes in Pennsylvania that are directly affected
by marital status, applying taxes or increased taxes to same-sex unmarried couples or couples married in another state that are not applied or applied as greatly against recognized married couples. Below I analyze the impact on same-sex couples, which is potentially significant and can be devastating depending on the circumstances of an individual couple, such as large inheritance tax liabilities at a time when a surviving partner is likely older and out of the workforce already. 40. Inheritance Tax. Pennsylvania collects an inheritance tax on property owned by a
resident that is transferred to anyone other than a legal spouse and is imposed as a percentage of the value of a decedent's estate transferred to beneficiaries by will, heirs by intestacy and transferees by operation of law. The tax rate varies depending on the relationship of the heir to the decedent. 1 Surviving spouses incur no transfer taxes; non-lineal heirs incur a transfer tax of 15%. A 5% discount on the actual tax paid (not on the tax rate) is available if the tax is paid within 90 days. 2 Thus, if same-sex spouses or partners have wills leaving their property to one another, the survivor will be required to pay an inheritance tax on all property left to him or her. 41. As an example of its application, I review how the tax would be applied to the value
of a typical home, aside from any other inherited assets. The median home price in Pennsylvania is $147,100. 3 If a same-sex couple owns a $147,100 home jointly with rights of survivorship, and one spouse or partner dies, the survivor would inherit $73,550 in value. Applying the 15% tax rate, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, Inheritance Tax, available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/inheritance_tax/11414. 2 Ibid. 3 Zillow Real Estate, Pennsylvania Median Home Prices and Home Values, 2013, available at http://www.zillow.com/local-info/PA-home-value/r_47/. 11
1
surviving partner would owe the Commonwealth $11,032.50 (or $10,480.87 with the early payment discount) just for the value of the very home they already are living in. 42. If, in the above example, the property were only in the deceased spouse/partners
name, the impact could be even worse. For example, where one spouse/partner owns property before a relationship begins, the couple may decide not to transfer the property to joint ownership so as to avoid paying Pennsylvanias realty transfer tax, which applies to transfers between individuals absent certain exceptions, such as transfers within a marriage. If the spouse/partner who had title to the property dies, the survivor would owe 15% on $147,100 or $22,065 (or $20,961.75 with the early payment discount). In this example, I assume the deceased partner has documented in a will that the surviving partner should inherit the property, since the laws of intestacy do not appear to recognize same-sex partners/spouses at all. 43. Any other jointly owned assets in the above examples would also be subjected to this
inheritance tax. 44. It is possible to estimate the inheritance taxes paid by the average same-sex couple
when one partner dies. To estimate the size of the estate, I use the mean net worth of households in the United States by quintiles, cut that in half for each individual in the couple, and then subtract probate fees, costs of a funeral, estimates of charitable donations, and likely bequests to children. 4 The estimated impact is a payment of $21,000 in inheritance taxes by a decedents estate that is left
Net worth: Bricker, Jesse, Arthur B. Kenneckell, Kevin B. Moore, and John Sabelhaus, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances Federal Reserve Bulletin 98, no. 2 (2012), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf; Probate Fee schedule: Register of Wills,Probate Fee Schedule Philadelphia: Phila.gov, 2008, available at http://secureprod.phila.gov/wills/fees.aspx; Internal Revenue Service. Charitable Bequests, by State of Residence. In SOI Tax Stats- Estate Tax Statistics Filing Year Table 32. Washington DC, 2011, available at http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Estate-Tax-Statistics-Filing-Year-Table3; Estimates of charitable deductions and bequests to children: The Impact on Marylands Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M. V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Shawn Kravich, Adam P. Romero, R. Bradley Sears, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2007, pp. 295-339; National Funeral Directors Association. Trends and Statistics: 2012 Funeral Costs, 2012, available at http://nfda.org/aboutfuneral-service-/trends-and-statistics.html#fcosts . 12
to his or her same-sex partner. Estate planning efforts by same-sex couples may lessen this exposure and risk, but even those efforts obviously cost resources to obtain and maintain, and likely will afford incomplete protections for the surviving spouse/partner. 45. Realty Transfer Tax. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also subjects real estate
transfers to a one percent transfer tax of the selling price. 5 Certain kinds of transfers are exempt from taxation, including transfers of property between spouses or former spouses. Under current law, transfers of property between same-sex spouses or partners are taxable. Therefore, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, some transfers that were once taxable will no longer be taxed. For example, in the case of a couple where one spouse or partner transfers half the value of the home to the other, it would result in $736 per transfer to the state for the median home price of Pennsylvania $147,100. This is a cost they would not have to pay if they could be married or have their marriage recognized. 46. Income Taxes. A recent study simulates the impact of marriage on same-sex
couples state income tax obligations and finds that couples filing as married in Pennsylvania would reduce their state income taxes by an average of $49.40 (Alm, et al, 2013) if permitted to filed as married. For some couples, the savings could be higher and for others lower. 6 b. 47. Increased transaction costs.
Because the marriage exclusion denies same-sex couples a host of automatic legal
protections (e.g., the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, the right to inherit if a spouse dies intestate, a presumption of parentage for the spouse of a woman who gives birth to a child), same-sex couples who are able to do so must create legal documents (e.g., health care proxies, durable powers of attorney, wills, second parent adoptions) to attempt to replicate these protections.
5
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, Realty Transfer Tax, available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/realty_transfer_tax/11417. 6 In addition, as addressed later, unmarried same-sex couples also must pay federal payroll taxes on the value of any health insurance benefits provided by an employer to their same-sex partner. For unmarried same-sex couples this could be an additional cost of thousands of dollars. 13
48.
Creating these legal documents, which at best create an incomplete patchwork of
family protections, can often cost same-sex couples thousands of dollars in legal fees (Bernard and Lieber, 2009). Some such documents also require maintenance and upkeep, costing more money. In addition to the pure financial costs, couples also face economic inefficiencies in terms of expending time, effort and stress in dealing with such matters. If couples were allowed to marry or have their marriages recognized, these protections and rights would be automatically conferred by Pennsylvania law through marriage. c. 49. Loss of Employer-Provided Benefits.
Many same-sex couples lack health insurance as a result of the marriage exclusion.
Recent studies show that people with same-sex partners have been more likely to be without health insurance than are married people (Ash & Badgett, 2006; Heck et al; Ponce et al; Buchmueller and Carpenter, 2012). In the United States, the most common source of insurance is through ones own or ones spouses employment (DeNavas-Walt, et al., 2009, Fig 7). 50. Although many employers have made the decision that providing domestic
partnership benefits to gay and lesbian employees makes good business sense (see section C.4 infra), domestic partnership benefits can be somewhat more expensive for employers to provide than spousal benefits because of additional payroll taxes paid on the taxable value of benefits and additional administrative resources needed (Badgett 2007). 51. Lesbians and gay men whose employers do not offer domestic partner health
benefitsor those whose personal tax situation make employer coverage cost-prohibitivemight turn to the individual insurance market to purchase insurance for their spouse or partner. But, because the price of insurance on the open market for individual coverage is more expensive than an employees share of spousal coverage, many persons without employment-based insurance may be unable to afford it (see Badgett, 2010). While the Affordable Care Act reforms might reduce the cost of individual health insurance on the insurance exchanges, some individuals are likely to still find the cost prohibitive and remain uninsured (and also subject to the tax penalty for lacking
14
coverage). Also, since Pennsylvania is not currently participating in the Medicaid expansion part of the Affordable Care Act, many low-income individuals in same-sex couples are likely to remain uncovered. 2. 52. Costs From Loss of Federal Rights and Benefits.
Same-sex couples who have not married in another state but would marry if allowed
in Pennsylvania are not eligible for a wide range of federal rights and benefits. Some of those federal benefits are not even available to same-sex spouses who are married if they reside in a state that does not recognize their marriage. As set forth below, being denied these federal rights and benefits imposes substantial economic penalties on same-sex couples, exposing them to increased financial risks including the loss of their home. These penalties include, among other things, (a) an increased federal tax burden; (b) decreased access to Social Security benefits; (c) decreased Medicaid protections; and (d) loss of Family Medical Leave Act rights. a. 53. Federal Tax Liabilities.
Some same-sex couples will pay higher income taxes because they cannot marry. In
particular, same-sex couples whose incomes are very different are most likely to benefit from filing joint federal income tax returns (see Badgett, 2010). One study estimates that the average same-sex couple in Pennsylvania would pay $812 less in federal taxes if they could marry (Alm, et al. 2013). 7 54. Unmarried same-sex couples who receive domestic partner health coverage from
their employers might also pay more in taxes than they would compared to married couples. The federal government taxes the employer contribution to a domestic partners benefits as income to the employee whose partner is covered. However, the federal government does not tax the employer contribution to a spouses benefits, including for a same-sex spouse. A 2007 study shows that the average person receiving domestic partner benefits is taxed $1069 in additional federal income and payroll taxes (Badgett, 2007).
7
James Alm, J. Sebastian Leguizamon, and Susane Leguizamon, Revisiting the Income Tax Effects of Legalizing Same-sex Marriages, forthcoming in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 15
55.
Inability to marry also has federal estate tax implications upon the death of a partner
for some couples. Transfers of assets from the estate of a deceased person to that persons spouse are tax-free, while transfers to an individual not recognized as a spouse are taxed if the transfers exceed the current estate tax exclusion limit ($5.34 million in 2014). b. 56. Social Security Benefits.
The Social Security system provides a variety of benefits to spouses and surviving
spouses of covered workers for retirement benefits, disability benefits, and survivor benefits. Unmarried same-sex couples -- and possibly even married same-sex couples who reside in states that do not recognize their marriages 8 -- are deprived of these benefits, which are designed to assist couples in old age or in the event of death or disability, because they cannot marry under Pennsylvania law. Notably, they are deprived of the benefits even though individuals in same-sex couples must pay into the social security program at the same rates as individuals in different-sex married couples. 57. On retirement, a married Social Security recipient is entitled to the larger of either
his or her own retirement benefit or one-half of his or her covered spouses retirement benefit. In Pennsylvania, the average monthly spousal retirement benefit was $684 in December 2012, or $8,209 per year. Since same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, they are not able to receive this spousal benefit at all. 58. On the death of a retired spouse, the surviving spouse receives the deceased spouses
benefit if it is greater than the survivors own Social Security retirement benefit. The Census Bureau data show that the average difference between the two benefits is $5,700 a year for samesex couples in the U.S. (Goldberg, 2009). If the higher earning partner were to die, the surviving partner would lose the higher earners entire Social Security payment and continue to receive their lower payment. By contrast, if same-sex couples could marry, the lower earning surviving spouse would receive the higher earners benefit, which would be on average $5,700 over his or her own
8
As of the date of this report, the Social Security Administration has not announced how it will treat married same-sex couples living in states that do not recognize those marriages. 16
benefit. Thus, denying same-sex couples the right to marry could cost approximately half of the surviving members of such couples on average $5,700 a year in lost Social Security payments. Social Security also provides a survivor benefit to widows and widowers whose spouses have paid into the system but have not yet retired. According to the Social Security Administration, it provides a surviving spouse not only a $255 lump sum benefit on the death of a covered worker, but survivor benefits that are the equivalent of a $433,000 life insurance policy for a young family (Rosenblatt, 2008). In Pennsylvania, the average monthly survivor benefit was $1,240 in December 2012, or $14,883 per year. Because they are not allowed to marry in Pennsylvania, members of same-sex couples are not allowed this survivor benefit at all. 59. If a covered worker becomes disabled, his or her spouse who is 62 or over receives a
benefit of one-half the disabled recipients Social Security benefit. In December 2012, the average spousal disability benefit in Pennsylvania was $305 per month, or $3,655 per year. Because they are not allowed to marry in Pennsylvania, members of same-sex couples are not allowed this spousal disability benefit at all. c. Medicaid Protection For Spouses of Individuals Who Enter Nursing Homes.
60.
Members of same-sex couples in Pennsylvaniaeven if married in another state
are at risk of losing their home when a partner enters a nursing home because the Commonwealth does not allow them to marry, the Commonwealth does not recognize their valid marriages entered into elsewhere, and the Commonwealth does not protect unmarried same-sex partners in spousal impoverishment protections. Because long-term care costs are so high, Medicaid steps in to pay those costs when a nursing home residents savings run out. However, special Medicaid regulations protect a married resident from having to spend down assets and impoverishing and/or displacing their spouse who is not in the nursing home. First, a still-healthy spouse of such a nursing home resident has a special claim to some of the nursing-home residents income and assets. Second, these protections extend to a married couples home. The government will eventually seize the
17
home and force a sale to recover what it spent on nursing home billsbut only after the other, surviving spouse dies as well. 61. Because they cannot marry or have their marriages recognized, same-sex couples in
Pennsylvania are not provided these protections in paragraph 60. The results can be financially catastrophic. Same-sex partners are not entitled to some of the nursing-home residents income or assets, and their home is not protected while the partner is still alive. Medicaid regulations also presume that joint bank accounts of same-sex couples are owned by the nursing home resident, so the government will require that the money in such accounts be spent down too. If the deed to a house is in the nursing home residents name and she has no chance of coming home, the home must be sold at fair market value. It does not matter how long the couple has been together, shared the home, and shared responsibility for the mortgage payments. d. 62. Family and Medical Leave Act.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act allows covered employees to take up to
12 weeks of unpaid leave per 12 month period for specified family or medical reasons. An unmarried partner is not included in the definition of family, and the U.S. Department of Labor defines spouse for this purpose as a husband or wife as defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the state where the employee resides, including common law marriage and same-sex marriage. 9 Therefore same-sex couples in Pennsylvania, whether married in another state or not, will not qualify for FMLA benefits to care for a same-sex spouse or partner. C. The Marriage Exclusion Imposes Costs on State and Local Governments and Businesses in Pennsylvania.
63.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its various counties and cities have been
suffering and will continue to suffer increased costs as a direct result of the marriage exclusion.
9
U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hours Division, Fact Sheet #28F: Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, August 2013, available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28f.htm( last accessed 2/4/14).
18
Over the next three years, if the ban on marriage for same-sex couples persists, the Commonwealths economy will lose $6599 million in business revenue and $4.25.8 million in tax revenue that would have accrued as a result of weddings by same-sex couples. The state will also continue to spend more on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and on Medicaid that they would if same-sex couples could marry. Even when tax savings to the state due to the discriminatory tax treatment of same-sex couples is factored in, the Commonwealths bottom line is harmed by the marriage exclusion. The states economy and private businesses with the state will also suffer as Pennsylvania remains a comparatively less attractive location for highly qualified workers and businesses, and businesses absorb higher costs such as taxes and administrative costs in providing domestic partnership benefits. 1. Lost Wedding-Related Business and Tax Revenue for Resident Couple Marriages.
64.
To assess the amount of wedding-related tax revenue lost by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, I first estimated the number of same-sex couples who would marry in Pennsylvania but cannot as a result of the marriage exclusion. I used two different calculations to arrive at the number of couples, in order to provide both an upper-bound and a lower-bound estimate. I then multiplied the number of couples by an estimate of average spending per wedding. 65. First, for an upper-bound estimate, I use figures from Massachusetts, in which 51%
of in-state same-sex couples married from 2004 to 2007. Based on those figures, it is reasonable to conclude that a number equal to approximately one-half of Pennsylvanias same-sex couples would marry in the first three years of having the option to do so. Half of the 22,336 same-sex couples in Pennsylvania in the 2010 Census would be 11,168 couples. The upper-bound estimate assumes that all of the 11,168 couples will marry. 66. Second, to arrive at a lower-bound estimate of the number of same-sex couples who
would marry in the first three years of having the option to do so, I assume that some of Pennsylvanias same-sex couples have traveled to Maryland, New Jersey, New York, or other state that allows same-sex couples to marry given the proximity to those states. Given the unavailability
19
of data from those states on the residence of out-of-state same-sex couples who might have married there, I instead use the fact that the 2010 U.S. Census found 3,228 same-sex couples in Pennsylvania who indicated that they were the husband or wife of the householder on the census form (U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Tables, 2011, App Tab 6b). If those couples were, in fact, already married in another state or were likely to get married since 2010, then subtracting those same-sex couples in Pennsylvania from the 11,168 provides a lower-bound estimate of 7,940 new weddings that would occur if Pennsylvania allowed same-sex couples to marry. 67. Based on wedding industry statistics, we conservatively predict that in-state couples
would spend 25% of the $25,945 reportedly spent on the average wedding in Pennsylvania, or $6,846 per wedding. This assumption is consistent with the experience in Massachusetts, in which the average wedding spending by same-sex couples was approximately $7,400 per wedding (Goldberg, Steinberger, and Badgett, 2009). The range of new wedding spending, then, would be $52 million (for 7,940 weddings) to $72 million (for 11,168 weddings). 68. In addition to spending by the couples who marry, those couples are likely to invite
guests who live in other states and would therefore be injecting new spending into the states economy. In Massachusetts, same-sex couples reported 16 out-of-state guests per wedding. If same-sex couples in Pennsylvania were to do the same and their guests spent only one day in Pennsylvania for the wedding, standard per diem rates used by the U.S. General Services Administration suggest that each of those guests would spend a total of $110 on food, lodging, and other expenses. Using the range for the number of weddings suggests that spending by out-of-state guests would generate $14 to $20 million. 69. The total lost spending by the Pennsylvania couples and out-of-state guests would
thus cost Pennsylvania and its counties and cities $65 to 92 million in taxable spending over three years. That lost spending would generate $4.2 to 5.8 million in state sales tax revenue, given the states sales tax rates (Tax Foundation, 2013).
20
70.
After the pent-up demand for marriage is met over the first few years, same-sex
couples in Pennsylvania and elsewhere would continue to generate wedding-related spending, tax, and fee revenues for businesses and state and local governments, although at a lower level. 71. It is reasonable to expect an added boost to Pennsylvanias economy from out-of-
state couples who travel from other states to marry in Pennsylvania. For purposes of making a conservative estimate, however, I leave out that amount. It has become increasingly difficult to predict the number of same-sex couples likely to travel to Pennsylvania to marry, because (1) the states already allowing same-sex couples to marry will continue to absorb the pent-up demand for marriage until Pennsylvania allows same-sex couples to marry and (2) even when Pennsylvania allows same-sex couples to marry, the state would be competing with other states for the remaining unmarried same-sex couples. 72. Yet the economic boost due to out-of-state couples marrying in Pennsylvania could
be substantial. Since only seventeen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia allow or will soon allow same-sex couples to marry, same-sex couples who wish to marry in the other states must travel to do so. State marriage license statistics in Iowa and Connecticut show that about 60% of licenses issued to same-sex couples have been to out-of-state same-sex couples (Badgett and Herman, 2011, p. 10). Same-sex couples from nearby states form the largest groups of out-of-state marriage licenses issued in those states. Demand for marriage by same-sex couples from other states is likely to increase now that the federal government recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples, regardless of place of domicile, for purposes of federal income taxation, estate taxes, employment benefits governed by ERISA, federal employee benefits, immigration rights, and potentially other federal benefits.
21
2. 73.
Higher Costs For Health Care of Uninsured Same-Sex Partners.
As noted earlier, the number of uninsured Pennsylvanians is higher than it would be
if same-sex couples could marry. This situation results in increased state expenditures on uncompensated care (Hadley, et al., 2008; Buettgens, et al. 2011). Uninsured workers increase the financial burden on Commonwealth and local governments by requiring increased expenditures on various programs, including Pennsylvanias Medicaid program and other state- and locally-funded programs to reimburse providers for uncompensated care. They also increase the financial burden on local governments that provide health care through county hospitals that are not fully reimbursed for the services they provide to some uninsured patients. 74. It is possible to estimate the amount of additional pre-Affordable Care Act spending
on Medicaid caused by the fact that same-sex couples cannot marry. Low-income state residents with young children, those who are blind or have a disability, or are aged are also eligible to apply. Eligibility for these programs is also means-tested, meaning that eligibility is determined by an individuals or familys income and assets. When a married couple applies for benefits, the nonapplicant spouses income is included in the overall determination. Currently, these public assistance programs do not require the state government to take into account a same-sex spouse or partners income and assets. People with a same-sex spouse or partner are considered single when eligibility for these programs is determined and are therefore more likely to be eligible than they would if they were recognized as married. When eligibility rates drop there are fewer participants in public assistance programs and state expenditures decrease. 75. In Pennsylvania, average spending for an adult on Medicaid (FY10) was $3,173, 10
and the state paid 37.8% of Medicaid costs (FY11), 11 so state spending on the average adult was $1,199. According to the 2012 American Community Survey, 12.2% of individuals in the 22,336 same-sex couples in Pennsylvania had Medicaid as their source of health insurance, or 5,450
10
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Payments Per Enrollee, FY2010, available at http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-payments-per-enrollee/. 11 Kaiser Family Foundation, Federal and State Share of Medicaid Spending, available at http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federalstate-share-of-spending/. 22
people, while only 5.4% of individuals in married different-sex couples were on Medicaid. If samesex couples could marry, I predict that same-sex couples rate of Medicaid utilization would fall to similar rates as different-sex married couples, leading to 1,519 fewer individuals receiving Medicaid. If each of those individuals incurred the same average expenditures, then the state would save $1.8 million per year. 3. 76. Higher Expenditures in TANF.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the federal block grants fund Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which provides means-tested cash transfers and job training for eligible low-income residents. Eligibility for these programs is means-tested, meaning that eligibility is determined by an individuals or familys income and assets. As with Medicaid, when a married couple applies for benefits, a spouses income is typically included in the overall determination. Currently, regulations for these programs could but do not require the state government to take into account an unmarried same-sex partner's income and assets. People with same-sex partners are considered single when eligibility for these programs is determined and are therefore more likely to be eligible than they would be if they were married. When eligibility rates drop, there are fewer participants in these programs, so state expenditures would fall. 77. To estimate the impact of same-sex marriage on TANF, I first estimate the average
cash TANF benefit in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania an average of 71,741 families received TANF funds. 12 The total combined state and federal contributions to TANF cash assistance in Pennsylvania were $202 million, a combined spending average of $2,810 per family. Any reductions in the states own spending on TANF would be directly returned to the state budget; leftover federal block grant funds can be redistributed towards other TANF programs. 13 To
12
Falk, Gene, (2013) The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service). 13 Falk, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer. 23
estimate the impact on the state revenue, we will utilize average spending in conjunction with samesex participation rates before and after marriage. 14 78. According to the 2012 American Community Survey, 3.8% of individuals in the
22,336 same-sex couples in Pennsylvania received public assistance as a form of income, or 1,698 individuals, while only 0.7% of married different-sex couples do. If they could marry, I again project that half of the individuals in same-sex couples receiving TANF would marry and their rate of TANF utilization would fall to similar rates as different-sex married couples, leading to 692 fewer individuals receiving TANF. If each of those individuals received the average cash benefit of $2,810, then the state would save $1.9 million per year. 4. Productivity and Competitiveness Losses to Businesses and the Commonwealth.
79.
Policies and workplace climates supportive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) workers are linked to greater job commitment, improved workplace relationships, increased job satisfaction, and improved health outcomes among LGBT employees. 15 Employers recognize these links and cite them in their own public communications (Sears and Mallory, 2012) and in two recent amicus briefs related to the Windsor and Perry cases. 16 In those briefs, hundreds of employers, including Google, Apple, Verizon, Walt Disney, Viacom, Nike, Morgan Stanley, and Our estimate of 50% of same-sex couples marrying reflects the possibility that loss of benefits would deter some couples from getting married. Additionally, some same-sex couples will continue to receive benefits once married; this could occur in single income earner households or in instances where the combined income of both earners is still below the eligibility threshold. Further, some spouses may become newly eligible for benefits as a result of marriage. 15 The equal treatment of LGB people in the workplace tends to increase the disclosure of sexual orientation by people in same-sex couples and single LGB people (Badgett, 2001; Badgett, 2009; Ramos, Goldberg, and Badgett, 2009; Driscoll, Kelley, and Fassinger, 1996; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Cornwell, 2008; Rostosky & Riggle, 2002). More openness of LGB employees leads to positive workplace outcomes for those individuals and their employers, such as greater job satisfaction, increased work commitment, and lower turnover (see also Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ellis & Riggle, 1995). Institutionalized conditions of inequality, such as state denial of the right to marry and private denial of employment benefits associated with marriage, undermine these goals. 16 Bradley Sears and Christy Mallory, Economic Motives for Adopting LGBT-Related Workplace Policies, October 2011, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Mallory-Sears-Corp-Statements-Oct2011.pdf. 24
14
Microsoft, argued that they want to recruit and retain the most creative and productive workers to make their businesses competitive, and that includes LGBT workers. State laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage hurt recruitment. Moreover, they want their LGBT employees to be able to focus on their jobs, not on dealing with the stigma and inequality that creates problems for their families: Finally, Proposition 8 leaves companies in the untenable position of being compelled implicitly to endorse the second-class status to which their gay and lesbian employees, clients, customers, and business associates are relegated. . . . This separation intolerably relegates samesex couples to second-class status and sends the signal that gay men and lesbians are unable to form long-term, committed, familial relations. . . . No matter how welcoming the corporate culture, it cannot overcome the societal stigma institutionalized by Proposition 8 and similar laws. Brief of American Companies as Amici in Support of Respondents, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12144 (Sup. Ct.), at 16, 4, 2. 80. Pennsylvania itself provides domestic partner benefits to its own employees.
Statements by the Pennsylvania Employee Benefits Trust Fund 17 at the time Pennsylvania decided to provide domestic partner health benefits indicate that Pennsylvania made that decision for the same types of reasons as private businesses e.g., competitiveness, recruitment and retention: It was a matter of costing things out and making sure it was affordable but, putting that aside, this is something we should have done a while ago, and were glad were doing it now, said Dave Fillman, chair of the PEBTF board of trustees. Its just the right thing to do. Fillman noted that the domestic-partner policy will help the state recruit new workers interested in an employer that offers such benefits and assist Pennsylvania in retaining qualified employees.
17
The PEBTF established in 1988, administers health care benefits to approximately 77,000 eligible Commonwealth of Pennsylvania employees and their dependents and 63,000 retirees and their dependents, as well as additional employer groups. The PEBTF is governed by a Board of Trustees comprised of both Commonwealth and Union representatives. PEBTF, About Us, available at https://www.pebtf.org/AboutUs/. 25
As with any benefit enhancement, were hoping that this will provide a benefit for someone who was considering state service that wasnt provided before, he said. Its pretty much a win-win for everyone. Christy Leo, PEBTF communications director, said the policy puts Pennsylvania in a better position to vie with other states and companies for the most-qualified employees. We basically want to become competitive with other employers, Leo said. A lot of other employers do provide such a benefit, so in order to be competitive we thought we needed to extend benefits to domestic partners. Domestic-partner benefits are offered at the majority of Fortune 500 companies including all 27 headquartered in Pennsylvania. State employees in 15 other states, including Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, are also eligible for domestic-partner benefits. Pennsylvania already offers employees life-insurance and long-term care options for domestic partners, but they were not eligible for the medical benefits. 18 81. Just as Pennsylvania has already recognized in its capacity as an employer,
Pennsylvania and businesses within the state are likely to find it more difficult to attract and retain some highly qualified members of the labor force because of the marriage exclusion for same-sex couples. By refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized, Pennsylvania and its businesses are at a disadvantage in attracting highly skilled workers, particularly those in the creative class occupations that may be central to further economic growth in high technology industries (Florida and Gates, 2001). Heterosexual and non-heterosexual members of the creative class, or the highly-educated, relatively young workers in occupations such as IT workers, engineers, scientists, teachers, artists/entertainers, banking/finance workers, managers, and medical professionals, might be deterred from moving to Pennsylvania. 82. Two sources of data suggest that marriage equality enhanced Massachusetts ability
to attract and retain workers in the creative class. First, a study of Census data found that migration
Jen Colletta, Breaking News: Pa. grants domestic-partner benefits, Philadelphia Gay News (2009), available at http://www.epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Breaking+News-+Pa+grants+domestic-partner+benefits%20&id=2559458. 26
18
patterns shifted in Massachusetts before and after same-sex couples could marry (Gates, 2009). In the three years before same-sex couples could marry, Massachusetts lost 603 people in same-sex couples. In the three years after same-sex couples could marry, the state saw a net gain of 119 people in same-sex couples. Net migration to Massachusetts by people in same-sex couples who are in creative-class occupations accounted for the migration shift between the two periods. The timing suggests that the right to marry attracted same-sex couples among the creative class. 83. Second, a 2009 survey of 559 individual members of same-sex married couples
living in Massachusetts in May 2009 found that 8% of those couples had moved to the state since their right to marry was affirmed there (Gates, 2009). More than half (51%) of those couples who had recently moved to Massachusetts reported that their decision to move to Massachusetts was influenced by marriage equality or the states lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights climate. 84. These findings suggest that as other states allow same-sex couples to marry,
Pennsylvania will find itself in an increasingly disadvantaged situation in competing nationally for the creative-class and other highly skilled members for the states own workforce and for businesses located in Pennsylvania. In fact, Pennsylvanias competitive disadvantage is exacerbated by its close proximity to many competitive state and metropolitan markets like New York (especially New York City), New Jersey, Massachusetts (especially Boston), Washington, D.C., Maryland and Delaware, that already provide and recognize marriage rights for same-sex couples. 5. Payroll Taxes and Other Inefficiencies That the Marriage Exclusion Forces Upon Businesses.
85.
As noted below, for those businesses that have decided to provide domestic partner
benefits to same-sex partners and spouses, the marriage exclusion makes it more difficult for those businesses to do so. Since it is likely that most or all of the states same-sex couples are not married, businesses that want to treat their employees with same-sex partners as equally as possible must incur start-up costs to create domestic partner health benefits for their employees with samesex partners, and then the employers must maintain them. In addition, in those situations, domestic 27
partnership benefits are treated as imputed income and are subjected to payroll taxes, liability for which employees and employers share (Badgett 2007). 19 In addition, domestic partner benefits requires administrative effort, as opposed to a more efficient process of providing spousal benefits for both married same-sex couples and different-sex couples. 6. The Additional Taxes the State Currently Collects as a Result of its Discriminatory Treatment of Same-sex Couples Are Clearly Outweighed By Additional Costs the Marriage Exclusion Imposes on the State.
86.
I do not address in this report whether it is legal or proper for a government to
support an otherwise discriminatory law on the basis of generating tax revenue; I address only the economic consequences of doing so. 87. As addressed above, same-sex couples must pay higher taxes than recognized
married couples in Pennsylvania. If same-sex couples were granted marriage rights, and thus saw a reduction in tax liability regarding certain taxes, this logically means that the state would experience a corresponding reduction in tax revenues for those certain taxes. But what the estimates below reveal is that despite the individual harms to same-sex couples of these tax liabilities, the total impact on the state budget of granting marriage rights would be a small decrease in certain tax revenues that is outweighed by the other fiscal benefits to the state that Ive discussed (e.g., increased sales tax revenues from weddings and lower governmental assistance program expenditures). 88. Income tax revenue might decline very slightly. As stated above, a recent study
finds that same sex couples filing as married in Pennsylvania would reduce their state income taxes by an average of $49.40 (Alm, et al, 2013). If half of same-sex couples marry, then state income
19
Some employers, in an effort to level the playing field for gay and lesbian workers, will also engage in grossing up, where the employer increases the employees salary in an amount sufficient to cover the additional income taxes paid by employees with domestic partners. Tara Siegel Bernard, For Gay Employees, and Equalizer, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/your-money/health-insurance/21money.html?_r=0. This, however, just means that businesses take on the full financial burden of unequal taxation of samesex couples who cannot marry. 28
tax revenue would fall by $550,000 per year, only 0.005% of the $11.7 billion total income tax revenue expected in 2013-14. 20 89. Inheritance tax revenue would fall to a relatively small extent. It is possible to
estimate the total inheritance taxes paid by same-sex couple households in several steps. First, I apply Pennsylvanias annual age-adjusted death rate (.0076) 21 to the estimated 11,168 same-sex couples who would marry (22,336 individuals), to project that 170 same-sex spouses per year would die. Next, I estimate the tax that would be paid by decedent's surviving same-sex partners in the absence of same-sex marriage. For this analysis, I use the mean net worth of households in the United States by quintiles and then subtract probate fees, costs of a funeral, estimates of charitable donations, and likely bequests to children. 22 The estimated total yearly impact is a payment of $3.6 million in inheritance taxes by same-sex decedents estates for their partners inheritance. 90. Realty transfer tax revenue might decline slightly as well. As stated above, a transfer
of property to joint ownership between same sex couples, or a transfer from joint ownership to sole ownership upon a dissolution of a relationship, would result in a $736 tax liability on a $147,100 home, the median home price in Pennsylvania. However, the difference in taxes collected before and after allowing same-sex couples is likely to be minimal for several reasons. First, in an effort to avoid such taxes now, couples might buy their homes together, and those who do not might be discouraged from transferring the property at all to a partner. Second, it is also possible that the right to marry could generate additional sales of homes to same-sex couples, thus increasing state transfer tax revenues. Third, such tax revenue from same-sex couples over and above what married couples pay would likely only be generated on one or two occasions over the lifespan of a couples relationship (i.e., upon turning a solely owned property into joint ownership or upon dissolution of
20
Michael Wood, Modest General Fund Revenue Growth Forecasted for 2013-14, Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, https://pennbpc.org/modest-general-fund-revenue-growthforecasted-2013-14. 21 Pennsylvania Department of Health, Mortality, Harrisburg, 2010, available athttp://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1275202/pa_vital_statistics_mortality_20 10_pdf. 22 See supra n.4. 29
the relationship). Taking these factors all together, the total annual decrease in realty transfer tax fees to Pennsylvania would be expected to be insubstantial. 91. Overall, these smaller tax effects of allowing same-sex couples to marry or
recognizing their marriages add up to approximately $4.1 million per year (assuming that the net realty transfer tax loss is insignificant). That loss is clearly outweighed by additional sales tax revenue and reduced spending on TANF and Medicaid. Subtracting the $4.1 million reduction in income, realty transfer, and inheritance tax revenue from the $1.4 to $1.9 million in additional sales tax revenue from weddings (the previously estimated range of $4.2 to 5.8 million averaged over three years) and $3.7 million savings in expenditures on TANF and Medicaid still results in a net gain to the state budget of $1.01.6 million per year, even when not accounting for the negative impact that the marriage exclusion has on Pennsylvania businesses. 7. 92. Net Magnitude of Cost.
The economic harms to Pennsylvania and its economy discussed above are
substantial. First, Pennsylvania businesses will lose approximately $65 to 92 million in weddingrelated business spending over three years. Second, the Commonwealth and its subdivisions will lose approximately $4.2 to 5.8 million in lost tax revenue over three years due to the inability of same-sex couples to marry. Third, Pennsylvania will spend an additional $1.8 million in Medicaid and $1.9 million in TANF per year. Fourth, the Commonwealth and Pennsylvania businesses may suffer further significant losses due to the increased difficulty of recruiting and retaining valuable employees. Fifth, businesses that seek to remedy this problem by providing domestic partner benefits must pay more than they do for spousal benefits and expend greater administrative resources. The approximately $4.1 million in revenue generated for Pennsylvania by taxing samesex couples differently due to the marriage exclusion (even assuming disparate taxation could be appropriate at all) does not come close to compensating for these economic losses to the state.
30
D. 93.
Pennsylvanias Asserted Economic Impacts.
Plaintiffs Interrogatories sought information regarding the basis for any contention
by defendants that the marriage exclusion is supportable because allowing or recognizing marriages for same sex couples would have adverse economic impacts on Pennsylvania or its businesses. In their responses, the defendants referenced the legislative history of the Commonwealths 1996 marriage statute, and specifically directed attention to the statements of Representative Egolf. 94. Within his remarks, Representative Egolf said: In the case of marriage, the exception allows States not to recognize marriages if they are repugnant to the public policy of the home State. Since no State has ever recognized same-sex marriages before, the question has never come before the courts. If and when the question comes to Pennsylvania courts, we want to remove any potential confusion and misinterpretation. This amendment introduced by Representative Maitland and myself specifically states what our policy is and always has been - that these so-called marriages are contrary to our public policy and will not be recognized in Pennsylvania. This amendment does not take anything away from anyone that they now have. It is simply an expression of Pennsylvania's traditional and longstanding policy of moral opposition to same-sex marriages, as described by DeSanto v. Barnsley, Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1984, and support of the traditional family unit. In addition, this amendment serves many other practical purposes for the Commonwealth of today and the future. For example, legalizing same-sex marriages would place another unfunded mandate on our business community. Any existing pension or insurance program providing benefits to a spouse would now have to include an entirely new supply of so-called spouses. The providers of these benefits would have to assume a liability they never conceived when the promise was made. To avoid these new liabilities, providers would have to cancel and rewrite the agreements, and future agreements might even delete the coverage of spouse and family that Pennsylvania workers have come to depend on. The burden on the public sector could be great as well. In recognizing same-sex marriages, courts would also have to hear all
31
same-sex divorce suits. This will only compound the backlog of cases in our judicial system. Social Security, tax, and other benefits presently conferred on spouses would have to be expanded to include married partners of the same sex. The financial costs imposed on society by the forced recognition of same-sex marriage cannot even be calculated at this time. 95. Thus, Representative Egolf purports to identify a few different economic impacts on
the Commonwealth and its businesses that could result from the recognition of same-sex marriage. The law supposedly would (i) avoid an unfunded mandate on [Pennsylvanias] business community; (ii) courts would have to hear all same-sex divorce suits, which would only compound the backlog of cases in [Pennsylvanias] judicial system; and (iii) Social Security, tax, and other benefits presently conferred on spouses would have to be expanded to include married partners of the same sex. Representative Egolf also states that any such financial costs cannot even be calculated at this time, implying that they had not been calculated at that time. 96. Addressing each of these stated reasons in turn from an economists perspective, I
find that they do not have merit and are counter to relevant data and facts. The effects on Pennsylvania are just the opposite as stated by Representative Egolf. 97. Unfunded Mandate on Business Community. Eliminating the marriage exclusion
would not place any sort of unfunded mandate on the business community. To the contrary, it would reduce some businesses employment costs and administrative costs. I note first that during questioning from another legislator, Representative Egolf acknowledged that there is no law in Pennsylvania requiring businesses to offer benefits to spouses . . . . (2018). Thus, if a company desired to provide spousal benefits, it would be a voluntary act of the company, and allowing samesex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized would not force any mandate on companies. On the contrary, as noted above, many businesses voluntarily provide domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees because they see it in their competitive interest to do so. But because of the marriage exclusion, those businesses must pay payroll taxes for benefits for unmarried same-sex partners and must undertake the additional expenditure of administrative and financial resources to create a substitute for the more efficient but unavailable option of simply
32
recognizing same-sex spouses. Accordingly, from my perspective as an economist, this concern of an unfunded mandate as stated by Representative Egolf is unwarranted and incorrect. 98. Divorces and Purported Backlogs. Here again Representative Egolfs statements are
incorrect. I refer here to the expert report of Leonore F. Carpenter. From my perspective as an economist, the marriage exclusion actually promotes a wasteful and inefficient expenditure of public resources on legal proceedings involving same-sex couples families. 99. Prof. Carpenter explains that in Pennsylvania, upon dissolution of a marriage,
married couples have access to Pennsylvanias Divorce Code, which provides a set of universally known or accepted default ground rules to deal with the complicated issues presented by any contested divorce, such as disposition of jointly held assets, equitable distribution of property, child custody matters, etc. In addition, in more populous counties, specific family courts provide access to judges specializing in that very system. Same-sex couples dissolving their relationship are not provided the same type of access or the same type of default ground rules. Same-sex couples will be subject to different rules of the game, relying on other statutes and various common law principles, as opposed to being governed by the Divorce Code. In addition, in various counties that have family courts, same-sex couples with disputes over property and non-custodial matters must file litigations in courts of general jurisdiction, which by the very design of the system, are going to be less knowledgeable and experienced than family courts in dealing with dissolution matters. Such litigations are even more complicated when child custody disputes are involved. In such situations, couples must file custody matters in the family courts while simultaneously filing disputes over other issues, such as ownership of property and assets, in courts of general jurisdiction. Thus, in some instances, same-sex couples not only are routed to a less efficient or specialized disposition of their disputes, but they are actually forced to file multiple actions, as opposed to married couples who file all such disputes together in a single divorce petition before the family courts. In either instance, the marriage exclusion can only be viewed as introducing economic inefficiencies into
33
Pennsylvanias court system, and not somehow protecting Pennsylvania from a backlog of divorce proceedings. 23 100. It also must be noted that same-sex couples are forced to use judicial resources at
times other than divorce when married couples are not. As Prof. Carpenter explained, although the husband of a married woman who gives birth is presumed to be the father and has automatic parental rights for the child, no such presumption attaches for same-sex couples. If a lesbian woman gives birth, her partner does not have automatic parental rights and to obtain those parental rights, the partner must file for a second-parent adoption, requiring increased use of court resources that married couples do not use. 101. Social Security, tax and state benefits. Since social security retirement benefits are
federal benefits, there is no impact on the state from allowing and recognizing marriages by samesex couples, although there is of course an impact on same-sex couples. As covered above, whatever tax revenue the State would lose if same-sex spouses were treated the same as differentsex spouses for state tax purposes would be far offset by cost savings to the state through increases in sales tax revenue from weddings and lower costs on public assistance programs and uninsured residents. Further, as discussed above, elimination of the marriage exclusion would provide many tangible financial benefits for Pennsylvania businesses (e.g., wedding-related business, lower payroll taxes) and more intangible economic benefits (e.g., better recruitment and retention of employees). Pennsylvania itself recognized these principles in deciding to provide domestic partnership benefits for its own employees. From an economists perspective, I again see no basis for any view that reduced tax liabilities or the use of public resources by married spouses in samesex couple relationships would have a net negative economic impact on the state.
23
While same-sex couples that would otherwise amicably dissolve their relationship without the courts due to the marriage exclusion now would need to file divorce petitions, these couples would have to pay filing fees associated with an uncontested divorce petition. However, any uncontested petition appears to require de minimis use of public resources, and filing fees, which can vary in amount but stretch into the hundreds of dollars depending on the county, would either cover any such costs or likely produce a net positive gain in revenue. 34
Puz~suant to 28 U.S.C. 176, Y declare under penalty of perjury that xhe forego az~d correct.
ing is txue
2014. Executed on February~,
BY: ~~_ v~ .D~~f WAX 11~.V. Lee Badgett, P~Z.D
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 39 of 408 M. V. LEE BADGETT
HOME ADDRESS: 67 Willow St. Florence, MA 01062 Cell: (310) 904-9761 CAMPUS ADDRESS: Center for Public Policy & Administration University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 Email: lbadgett@pubpol.umass.edu (v) 413-545-3162 (f) 413-545-1108
CURRENT POSITION: Director Professor Williams Distinguished Scholar EDUCATION: University of California, Berkeley University of Chicago
Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Massachusetts-Amherst Dept. of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law DEGREE Ph.D. A.B. DATE 1990 1982 FIELD Economics Economics
Dissertation title: "Racial Differences in Unemployment Rates and Employment Opportunities" PREVIOUS POSITIONS: Research Director, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law (2006-2013) Assistant & Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst (1997-2008) Adjunct Professor, Whittier Law School (Summer 2011) Visiting Professor, UCLA School of Law (2005-2007; Summer 2008) Visiting Researcher, Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam (2003-2004) Co-founder & Research Director, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (1994-2006, merged with Williams Institute 2006) Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park (1990-1997) Visiting Assistant Professor, Womens Studies and Lesbian and Gay Studies, Yale University (1995-1996) Research Analyst, National Commission for Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor (Summer 1994) RECENT COURSES TAUGHT: Economics: Microeconomics (University of Massachusetts) Microeconomics and Public Policy (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) Political Economy of Sexuality (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) Labor Economics--undergraduate and Ph.D. level (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) Feminist Economics (co-taught as visiting professor at University of Minnesota) Policy: Policy Analysis (University of Massachusetts-Amherst), Capstone course (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) Social Inequality and Social Justice: Problems and Solutions (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) Social Science and Public Policy on LGBT Issues (Whittier Law School Barcelona program; University of Massachusetts Online)
CURRENT RESEARCH TOPICS: Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in labor markets and impact of public policy Poverty in LGBT community Family structures and family policy, especially same-sex partner recognition in US and other countries Domestic partner health care and pension benefits BOOKS: When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, New York University Press, 2009. Distinguished Book Award, American Psychological Association, Division 44, 2010. Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective, co-edited by M. V. Lee Badgett and Jeff Frank, Routledge, 2007. Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men, University of Chicago Press, 2001. BOOK MANUSCRIPT: Using Research to Change the World, full manuscript under review.

JOURNAL ARTICLES: Same-Sex Legal Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: Findings From the California Health Interview Survey, Richard G. Wight, Allen J. LeBlanc, and M. V. Lee Badgett, American Journal of Public Health, February 2013, Vol. 103, No. 2, 339346. Separated and Not Equal: Binational Same-Sex Couples, Signs, Vol. 36, No. 4, Summer 2011, 793-798. Social Inclusion and the Value of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts and the Netherlands, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2011, pp. 316-334. Are We All Decisionists Now? Response to Libby Adler, online forum of Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Review, March 2011. The Economic Value of Marriage for Same-sex Couples, Drake Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2010, pp 1081-1116. Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination 1998-2008, M.V. Lee Badgett, Brad Sears, Holning Lau, and Deborah Ho. Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2009. The Double-Edged Sword in Gay Economic Life: Marriage and the Market. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, Vol. 15, No. 1, Fall 2008, pp. 109-128. Registered Domestic Partnerships Among Gay Men and Lesbians: The Role of Economic Factors, M. V. Lee Badgett, Gary J. Gates, and Natalya Maisel, Review of Economics of the Household, December 2008. The Impact on Marylands Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M. V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Shawn Kravich, Adam P. Romero, R. Bradley Sears, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2007, pp. 295-339. Supporting Families, Saving Funds: An Economic Analysis of Equality for Same-sex Couples in New Jersey, Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, by M. V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, and Deborah Ho, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2006. Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to Employment-Based Health Insurance on Same-sex and Unmarried Different-Sex Couples, Michael Ash and M. V. Lee Badgett, Contemporary Economic Policy, October 2006, Vol. 24, no. 4, pp 582-599. Predicting Partnership Rights: Applying the European Experience to the United States, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2005, 71-88. Putting a Price on Equality? The Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry on Californias Budget, coauthored with R. Bradley Sears, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005, pp. 197-232. Winner of 2005 Dukeminier Award for Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Articles, reprinted in The Dukeminier Award Journal, Vol. 5, 2006. Now That We Do: Same-Sex couples and Marriage in Massachusetts, with Randy Albelda and Michael Ash, Massachusetts Benchmarks, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 2005, 17-24. Asking the Right Questions: Making the Case for Sexual Orientation Data, 2004 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Statistical Computing Section [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 1-10. "Job Gendering: Occupational Choice and the Marriage Market," M. V. Lee Badgett and Nancy Folbre, Industrial Relations, April, 42(2), 2003, 270-298. "Wedding Bell Blues: The Income Tax Consequences of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage," James Alm, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Leslie A. Whittington, National Tax Journal, Vol. LIII, No. 2, June 2000, pp. 201-214.
M. V. Lee Badgett--page 1

"Assigning Care," co-authored with Nancy Folbre, International Labour Review, Vol. 138, No. 3, 1999, pp. 311-326. "Introduction: Towards Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Perspectives in Economics: Why and How They May Make a Difference," Prue Hyman and M. V. Lee Badgett, introduction to special section of Feminist Economics, co-edited by Badgett and Hyman, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer 1998, pp. 49-54. "Readings Related to Lesbian and Gay Economics: An Annotated Bibliography," Feminist Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer 1998, pp. 111-116. A Queer Marketplace: Books on Lesbian and Gay Consumers, Workers, and Investors, (review essay) Feminist Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, Fall 1997, pp. 607-632. "Employment and Sexual Orientation: Disclosure and Discrimination in the Workplace," Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 29-52. Simultaneously published as Sexual Identity on the Job: Issues and Services, Alan L. Ellis and Ellen D.B. Riggle, editors, Harrington Park Press, 1996. Also published in Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, 2nd edition, ed. Linda D. Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel, Columbia University Press, 2003. "The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 48, No. 4, July, 1995, pp. 726-739. Reprinted in Women Transforming Politics: An Alternative Reader, ed. by Cathy J. Cohen, Kathleen B. Jones, and Joan C. Tronto, New York University Press, 1997. "Gender, Sexuality and Sexual Orientation: All in the Feminist Family?" Feminist Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1995. Reprinted in Gender and Political Economy: Incorporating Diversity into Theory and Policy, ed. by Ellen Mutari, Heather Boushey, and William Fraher IV, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1997. "Affirmative Action in a Changing Legal and Economic Environment," Industrial Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1995. "Rising Black Unemployment: Changes in Job Stability or Employability?" Review of Black Political Economy, Vol. 22, No. 3, Winter 1994, pp. 55-75. "The Economics of Sexual Orientation: Establishing a Research Agenda," M. V. Lee Badgett and Rhonda M. Williams, Feminist Studies, Vol. 18, No.3, 1992. BOOK CHAPTERS: Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States, by M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody Herman, in International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, ed. by Amanda Baumle, Springer, 2013. Marriage by the Numbers, in Here Come the Brides: Reflections on Lesbian Love and Marriage, ed. by Audrey Bilger & Michele Kort, Seal Press, Berkeley, 2012, pp. 170-176. Bringing All Families to Work Today: Equality for Gay and Lesbian Workers and Their Families, in The Changing Realities of Work and Family: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. By Amy Marcus-Newhall, Diane Halpern, and Sherylle Tan, WileyBlackwell, 2008. The Global Gay Gap: Institutions, Markets, and Social Change, with Jefferson Frank, Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective, edited by Badgett and Frank, Routledge, 2007. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Economics Literature and Beyond, in The Handbook of the Economics of Discrimination, ed. By William M. Rodgers III, Edward Elgar, 2006. Also appearing in Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective, edited by Badgett and Frank. "Is Affirmative Action Working for Women?" (co-authored with Jeannette Lim) in Mary C. King (ed.) Squaring Up: Policy Strategies to Raise Women's Incomes in the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001. Lesbian and Gay Think Tanks: Thinking for Success, Identity/Space/Power: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Politics, edited by Mark Blasius, Princeton University Press, 2000.

The Impact of Affirmative Action on Public-Sector Employment in California, 1970-1990, in Paul Ong, editor, Impacts of Affirmative Action: Policies & Consequences in California, AltaMira Press, 1999; and in The Impact of Affirmative Action on Public-Sector Employment and Contracting in California, A Technical Assistance Program Report of the California Policy Seminar, University of California, 1997. "Where the Jobs Went in the 1990-91 Downturn: Varying (Mis)Fortunes or Homogeneous Distress?" Civil Rights and Race Relations in the Post Reagan-Bush Era, ed. Samuel L. Myers, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1997, pp 99-147. The Economic Well-Being of Lesbian and Gay Adults Families, in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities in the Families: Psychological Perspectives, ed. by Charlotte J. Patterson and Anthony R. DAugelli, Oxford University Press, 1997. "Choices and Chances: Is Coming Out at Work a Rational Choice?" in Queer Studies: A Multicultural Anthology, ed. by Mickey Eliason and Brett Beemyn, New York University Press, 1996. "Beyond Biased Samples: Challenging the Myths on the Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men," in Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life, ed. by Amy Gluckman and Betsy Reed, Routledge Press, 1997. "Occupational Strategies of Lesbians and Gay Men," M. V. Lee Badgett and Mary C. King, in Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life, ed. by Amy Gluckman and Betsy Reed, Routledge Press, 1997. "Thinking Homo/Economically," in Walter L. Williams and James Sears, eds., Combating Homophobia and Heterosexism, forthcoming, Columbia University Press. (Reprinted in A Queer World: The CLAGS Reader, ed. by Martin Duberman, New York University Press, 1997.) "Evidence of the Effectiveness of Equal Employment Opportunity Policies: A Review," M. V. Lee Badgett and Heidi I. Hartmann, in Economic Perspectives on Affirmative Action, ed. by Margaret C. Simms, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 1995. "The Changing Contours of Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Structural Economic Change," M. V. Lee Badgett and Rhonda M. Williams, in Understanding American Economic Decline, David Adler and Michael Bernstein, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. POLICY REPORTS: M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody L. Herman, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Diversity in Entertainment: Experiences and Perspectives of SAG-AFTRA Members, Williams Institute and SAG-AFTRA, September 2013. M. V. Lee Badgett, Laura Durso, and Alyssa Schneebaum, New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community, Williams Institute, May 2013. M. V. Lee Badgett, Laura Durso, Angel Kastanis, and Christy Mallory, The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Policies, Williams Institute, May 2013. Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Delaware, Williams Institute, May 2013. Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Rhode Island, Williams Institute, May 2013. Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Minnesota, Williams Institute, May 2013. Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Illinois, Williams Institute, March 2013.

Administrative Impact of Adding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to Texass Employment Non-Discrimination Law, Christy Mallory and Lee Badgett, December 2012. The Economy Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Australia, M. V. Lee Badgett and Jennifer Smith, Williams Institute, February 2012. Impact of Extending Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Requirements to Federal Contractors, Williams Institute, February 2012. The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Washington, Angeliki Kastanis, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Jody L. Herman, January 2012. Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Iowa: Sales Tax, Angeliki Kastanis, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Jody L. Herman, December 2011. Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States, M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody L. Herman, Williams Institute, November 2011. "Spending on Weddings of Same-Sex Couples in the United States," By Craig J. Konnoth, M.V. Lee Badgett, Brad Sears, Williams Institute, July 2011. The Impact of Creating Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples on Delaware's Budget, By Jody L. Herman, Craig J. Konnoth, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, March 2011. "The Fiscal Impact of Creating Civil Unions on Colorados Budget," By Jody L. Herman, Craig J. Konnoth, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, February 2011. "The Impact on Rhode Islands Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry," By Jody L. Herman, Craig J. Konnoth, M.V. Lee Badgett, February 2011, Williams Institute. "Employment Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People in Oklahoma," By Christy Mallory, Jody L. Herman, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, January 2011. "Employment Discrimination against LGBT Utahns," By Clifford Rosky, Christy Mallory, Jenni Smith, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, January 2011. "Utah Census Snapshot: New Study on Same-Sex Couples in Utah," By Jody L. Herman, Christy Mallory, M.V. Lee Badgett, Gary J. Gates, Williams Institute, November 2010. "The Potential Impact of HB444 on the State of Hawai'i," by Naomi Goldberg, R. Bradley Sears, and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, June 2010. "The Impact of Expanding FMLA Rights to Care for Children of Same-Sex Partners," M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, June 2010. "The Impact of Employment Nondiscrimination Legislation in South Dakota," Naomi Goldberg, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Chris Ramos, Williams Institute, January 2010. "The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the New Jersey Budget," by Brad Sears, Christopher Ramos, and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, December 2009. Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys, editor and co-author, Williams Institute, November 2009. The Business Boost from Marriage Equality: Evidence from the Health and Marriage Equality in Massachusetts Survey, by Naomi Goldberg, Michael Steinberger, and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, May 2009. The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on same-sex couples, by Christopher Ramos, Naomi G. Goldberg, and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, May 2009. M. V. Lee Badgett--page 4

The Impact on Maines Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, by Christopher Ramos, M. V. Lee Badgett, Michael D. Steinberger, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, April 2009. The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in the District of Columbia, by Christopher Ramos, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, April 2009. Fact Sheet: Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples, by Naomi Goldberg and M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, April 2009. The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Vermont, By M. V. Lee Badgett, Christopher Ramos, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, March 2009. Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community, by Randy Albelda, M.V. Lee Badgett, Gary Gates, and Alyssa Schneebaum, Williams Institute, March 2009. Florida Adoption Ban/ Cost Estimate, by Naomi Goldberg and M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, February 2009. Kentucky Foster Care/Adoption Ban Cost Estimate, By Naomi Goldberg and M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, February 2009. The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Maine, By M. V. Lee Badgett, Christopher Ramos, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, February 2009. Evidence of Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Complaints Filed with State Enforcement Agencies 1999-2007, By M. V. Lee Badgett, Christopher Ramos, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, November 2008. The Fiscal Impact of Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners, Naomi G. Goldberg, Christopher Ramos, and M.V. Lee Badgett, September 2008. Marriage, Registration and Dissolution by Same-sex Couples in the U.S., Gary J. Gates, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Deborah Ho, Williams Institute, July 2008. The Impact of Extending Marriage to Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples on the Massachusetts Budget, By M. V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears, Williams Institute memo to Massachusetts Secretary of Housing and Economic Development, June 2008. The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget, Brad Sears and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, June 2008. The Impact on Iowa's Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Adam P. Romero and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, April 2008. The Impact on Oregon's Budget of Introducing Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships, By M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Elizabeth Kukura, and Holning Lau, Williams Institute, February 2008. Implications of HB 9 for Businesses in New Mexico, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, January 2008. Unequal Taxes on Equal Benefits: The Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits, M.V. Lee Badgett, Center for American Progress and Williams Institute, December 2007. The Impact on Maryland's Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, Amanda Baumle, Shawn Kravich, Adam P. Romero, and R. Bradley Sears, Williams Institute, November 2007. Amici curiae brief, in re Marriage Cases, Supreme Court of California, September 2007, M. V. Lee Badgett and Gary J. Gates. Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination, by Lee Badgett, M. V. Lee Badgett--page 5

Holning Lau, Brad Sears, and Deborah Ho, Williams Institute, UCLA, June 2007. Census Snapshot series: 50 state reports; Williams Institute, UCLA, with various co-authors, 2007. Methodological Details for Census Snapshot, August 2007, Danielle MacCartney, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Gary Gates. Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States, Williams Institute and Urban Institute, March 2007, Gary Gates, Lee Badgett, Jennifer Macomber, and Kate Chambers. The Financial Impact of Domestic Partner Benefits in New Hampshire, Williams Institute, December 2006. Economic Benefits from Same-Sex Weddings in New Jersey, Williams Institute, December 2006. Frequently Asked Questions about Providing Domestic Partner Benefits, M. V. Lee Badgett and Michael A. Ash, Williams Institute, October 2006. The Impact of the Colorado Domestic Partnership Act on Colorado's State Budget, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Roger Lee, and Danielle MacCartney, Williams Institute. October 2006 The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy, M.V. Lee Badgett and Gary J. Gates, Williams Institute, October 2006. The Impact on Washingtons Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Elizabeth Kukura, and Holning Lau, IGLSS and Williams Institute, 2006. The Impact on New Mexicos Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Steven K. Homer, Patrice Curtis, and Elizabeth Kukura, IGLSS and Williams Institute, 2006. Positive Effects on State of Alaska from Domestic Partnership Benefits, Williams Institute, 2006. The Cost to Ocean County of Providing Pension Benefits to Employees Domestic Partners, Williams Institute, 2006. The Impact on New Hampshires Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, R. Bradley Sears, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Elizabeth Kukura, IGLSS and Williams Institute, 2005. Counting on Couples: Fiscal Savings from Allowing Same-Sex Couples in Connecticut to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Patrice Curtis, and Elizabeth Kukura, IGLSS and Williams Project on Sexual Orientation and the Law, 2005. Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Evidence from Scandinavia and the Netherlands, Discussion paper, Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, July 2004. The Business Cost Impact of Allowing Same-sex Couples to Marry, co-authored with Gary Gates. Human Rights Campaign and Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 2004. Same-sex Couples and Their Children in Massachusetts: A View from Census 2000, co-authored with Michael Ash, Nancy Folbre, Lisa Saunders, and Randy Albelda, Angles, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, MA, February 2004. Sears, R. Bradley, and M. V. Lee Badgett. The Impact on Californias Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, May 2004. Sears, R. Bradley, and M. V. Lee Badgett. Same-sex Couples and Same-sex Couples Raising Children in California, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, May 2004. The Bottom Line on Family Equality: The Impact of AB205 on California Businesses, M. V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project, August 2003.

Supporting Families, Saving Funds: A Fiscal Analysis of New Jerseys Domestic Partnership Act, M.V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, December 2003. Equal Rights, Fiscal Responsibilities: The Impact of AB205 on Californias Budget, M.V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, May 2003. Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-sex Couples in Census 2000, M. V. Lee Badgett and Marc A. Rogers, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, MA, 2003. "Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health Care Benefits for Domestic Partners," Angles, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2000. Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Americans, Joint publication of NGLTF Policy Institute and Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 1998. Reprinted in The Gay & Lesbian Review, Spring 2000. "The Fiscal Impact on the State of Vermont of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry," IGLSS Technical Report 98-1, October 1998. Creating Communities: Giving and Volunteering by Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People, Working Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, February 1998. (Co-authored with Nancy Cunningham) Vulnerability in the Workplace: Evidence of Anti-Gay Discrimination, Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, September 1997. For Richer, For Poorer: The Cost of Nonrecognition of Same Gender Marriages, M. V. Lee Badgett and Josh A. Goldfoot, Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1996. "Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Surveys Across the United States," Lee Badgett, Colleen Donnelly, and Jennifer Kibbe, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, 1992. "The Impact of the Construction of Luz SEGS VIII on California and the Project Area," William T. Dickens, Lee Badgett, and Carlos Davidson, February 1989. OP-EDS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS: The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage, March 29, 2013, PBS News Hour Blog, The Business Desk, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m.html The Books that Inspired Lee Badgett, blog post, LSE Review of Books, November 2012. Review of Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans Definitions of Family, in Gender & Society, August 2012, Vol. 26, No. 4, 674-676. Gay Marriage Good for Family and Economy, The Drum Opinion, ABC Online (Australian Broadcasting Corp.), March 6, 2012. What Obama Should Do About Workplace Discrimination, New York Times, February 6, 2012. High Costs of Discrimination, Worcester Telegram, M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody Herman, May 11, 2011. Featured guest column, The Economist debate on marriage for same-sex couples, January 6, 2011, http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/638. Summer of Love and Commitment, The Huffington Post, September 3, 2008. Sexual Orientation, Social and Economic Consequences, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd Edition, ed. William A. Darity, Jr., Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. The Wedding Economy, The New York Times, January 7, 2007.

The Closet Doors Open: Whats Behind Hartfords Surge in Gay Population? The Hartford Courant, Gary J. Gates and M. V. Lee Badgett, November 5, 2006. The Future of Same-Sex Marriage, Social Work Today, November 2006. The Gay Health Insurance Gap, www.alternet.org, October 26, 2006. Whats Good for Same-Sex Couples is Good for Colorado, The Daily Camera, Boulder, CO, October 28, 2006. Book review of Inheritance Law and the Evolving Family, by Ralph Brashear, Feminist Economics, vol. 12, no. 1-2, 2006. Equality Doesnt Harm Family Values, with Joop Garssen, National Post (Canada), August 11, 2004. Prenuptial Jitters: Did Gay Marriage Destroy Heterosexual Marriage in Scandinavia? Slate Magazine, May 20, 2004, http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/. Brad Sears and Lee Badgett, Tourism and Same-sex Marriage, San Diego Union-Tribune, June 2, 2004. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040527/news_lz1e27sears.html Equality Is Not Expensive, Connecticut Law Tribune, April 19, 2004. Domestic Partner Bill Wont Be Burden to Business, Orange County Register, April 18, 2004, with Brad Sears. Economics and Boycotts, entries for Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender History, ed. by Marc Stein, Scribners, forthcoming December 2013. Recognizing California Couples: Domestic-Partner Law Attacked by Anti-Gay Senator Could Boost Flow of Cash to State, M. V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears, Daily Journal, October 14, 2003. A Win at Cracker Barrel, The Nation, February 10, 2003. Why I was a Dem for a Day, Daily Hampshire Gazette, June 2002. Commentary on Boy Scouts of America, WFCR, Amherst, MA, August 13, 2001. "Sexual Orientation," Richard Cornwall and M. V. Lee Badgett, entry for Encyclopedia of Feminist Economics, ed. by Meg Lewis and Janice Peterson, Edward Elgar, 2000. "Lesbians, social and economic situation," entry for International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, forthcoming. "One Couple's 'Penalty' remains another's privilege", with James Alm and Leslie A. Whittington, Boston Globe, September 3, 2000, p. E2. Domestic partner status unfair to gay couples, Springfield Sunday Republican, op-ed April 2, 2000, p. B3. Do Sexual Orientation Policies Help Lesbians? in Women's Progress: Perspectives on the Past, Blueprint for the Future, Institute for Womens Policy Research, Fifth Policy Research Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, 1998. "Census Data Needed," letter to the editor, The Washington Blade, November 7, 1997, p. 37. Same-sex partners bring nurturing--and financial benefits--to the altar, op-ed piece with Gregory Adams, Chicago SunTimes, June 8, 1996, p. 16. "The Last of the Modernists: A Reply," Feminist Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1995. "Domestic Partner Recognition: Doing the Right--and Competitive--Thing," Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 4, Spring 1995. "Equal Pay for Equal Families," Academe, May/June 1994.

"Lesbian and Gay Campus Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits," in Higher Education Collective Bargaining During a Period of Change, Proceedings, Twenty-Second Annual Conference, April 1994, The National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, Baruch College, CUNY, 1994. "Beyond Biased Samples: Challenging the Myths on the Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men," pamphlet published by National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 1994. (Early version of book chapter of same title.) Co-author and co-editor, Labor and the Economy, published by the Center for Labor Research and Education, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley, 1989. "Looking for the Union Label: Graduate Students at U.C.," California Public Employee Relations, No. 85, June 1990. "Rusted Dreams: Documenting an Economic Tragedy," Labor Center Reporter, No. 219, October 1987. "How the Fed Works," Labor Center Reporter, No. 177, November 1986. EXPERT WITNESS EXPERIENCE (LITIGATION 2009-2013): Written testimony, Harris v. McDonnell, No. 5:13-cv-00077 (W.D. Va.), December 2013 (challenge to Virginias marriage equality prohibition) Written testimony, DeLeon v. Perry, No. 5:13-cv-00982 (S.D. Tex.), November 2013 (challenge to marriage equality prohibition in Texas) Written testimony, Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-00217 (D. Utah), October 2013 (challenge to Utahs marriage equality prohibition) Written testimony, Darby/Lazaro v. Orr, No. 12 CH 19718 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty.), April 2013 (challenge to Illinois marriage equality prohibition) Written testimony, Sevcik v. Sandoval, No. 2:12-cv-00578 (D. Nev.), 2012 (challenge to Nevadas marriage equality prohibition) Written testimony, Bassett v. Snyder, No. 2:12-cv-100382012 (E.D. Mich.), 2012 and 2013 (challenge to Michigans Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act). Written testimony, Glossip v. Missouri Dept of Transp. and Highway Patrol Employees' Ret. Sys., No. 10-CC00434 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.), 2011 (challenge to denial of death benefit to state troopers surviving same-sex partner). Written testimony, Collins v. Brewer (later Diaz v. Brewer), No. 2:09-cv-02402 (D. Ariz.), 2010 (challenge to Arizonas cancellation of domestic partner benefits). Deposition and trial testimony, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Perry v. Brown, Hollingsworth v. Perry), No. 3:09-cv-02292 (N.D. Cal.), 2010 (challenge to Californias Proposition 8). LEGISLATIVE WITNESS EXPERIENCE (Selected): U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, S.811, The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2011, June 12, 2012. Written testimony, S. 598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families, M. V. Lee Badgett, Ilan H. Meyer, Gary J. Gates, Nan D. Hunter, Jennifer C. Pizer, Brad Sears. July 2011. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia on HR 2517: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act of 2009, July 2009. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, Testimony on Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 2015), September 2007. M. V. Lee Badgett--page 9

Written and oral testimony on legislation or regulations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont.
SELECTED MEDIA APPEARANCES: Featured guest, Tell Me More, NPR, June 10, 2013. Featured guest, Encounter, Radio National, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp), October 9, 2011. Featured guest, Faith Middleton Show, January 13, 2011. http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/content/wnpr/faith-middleton-showwhen-gay-people-get-married Featured guest, Same-Sex Marriage, Five Years On, On Point, National Public Radio, May 27, 2009. http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/05/same-sex-marriage-five-years-on Featured guest, Gay Commerce, Talk of the Nation, National Public Radio, 1997. Featured guest, Gay Market, Odyssey: A Daily Talk Show of Ideas, NPR nationally syndicated show, 2005. http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/DWP_XML/od/2005_05/od_20050512_1200_4906/episode_4906.ram Interviewed on All Things Considered, Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, One Year Later, May 2005. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4655621 Featured guest, CNN American Morning: The Future of Marriage, June 2006. http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/images/CNN_AmericanMorning_FutureOfMarriage_LeeBadgett_062006.mov
WORK IN PROGRESS AND PAPERS UNDER REVIEW: Assessing the effect of nondiscrimination policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity, M.V. Lee Badgett and Samantha Schenck. Uncovering Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Poverty in the United States, Randy Albelda, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Alyssa Schneebaum. Are Gay People Happy? M. V. Lee Badgett and Alyssa Schneebaum. Minority stress and its association with cohabitation and Domestic Partnership registration in California, Natalya Maisel, Gary J. Gates, and M. V. Lee Badgett, August 2007, under review. Gay and Lesbian Families: A Research Agenda, Gary J. Gates and M. V. Lee Badgett, August 2006. "Breadwinner Dad, Homemaker Mom: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Changing Gender Norms in the United States, 19771998." Lee Badgett, Pamela Davidson, Nancy Folbre, and Jeannette Lim, in progress, 2000.
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS OF PAPERS SUBMITTED TO ACADEMIC CONFERENCES: Assessing the effect of nondiscrimination policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity, Badgett and Samantha Schenck. Presented at: Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Labor Market, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, 6/20/2012; International Association for Feminist Economics, Barcelona Spain. 6/27/2012; APPAM conference, November 2012. Waves of Change: Is Latin America Really Following Europe in Same-Sex Couples?, at 8th Annual Update, Williams Institute, Global Arc of Justice: Sexual Orientation Law Around the World, March 14, 2009. Gay poverty, Presented at 2009 Allied Social Science Association Meeting; 2009 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference; 2008 IAFFE Research Conference, Torino, Italy, June 2008; Williams Institute Annual Update, February 2008.

Registered Domestic Partnerships Among Gay Men and Lesbians: The Role of Economic Factors, (with Gary J. Gates and Natalya Maisel), presented at 2007 APPAM Meeting, Washington, DC; 2008 Allied Social Science Associations Annual meeting, New Orleans. Predicting Same-Sex Marriage in Europe & the US, Presented at 2008 IAFFE Research Conference, Torino, Italy, June 2008. Social Lab Outcomes: Same-Sex Couples and Legal Recognition, Temple University Law School, States as Social Laboratories, October 20, 2007. The Double-Edged Sword in Gay Economic Life: Marriage and the Market. Washington & Lee School of Law, Feb 2008. Why Marry? Presented at 2006 IAFFE Research Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 2006; New School for Social Research, October 2006; Sociology Family Working Group, UCLA, 2006. An exploration of foster care and adoption among lesbians and gay men, joint work with Jennifer Macomber, Kate Chambers, Gary Gates. Family Pride conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 2006. Survey Data on Sexual Orientation: Building a Professional Consensus, presented at 2005 Joint Statistical Association Meetings, August 2005. Also presented to Canadian Population Society, June 2005; Williams Project Annual Update, UCLA Law School, February 2005. Alternative Legal Statuses for Same-sex couples and other families: Can Separate Be Equal Enough? Presented at International Association for Feminist Economics, Washington DC, July 2005; APPAM, Washington, DC, November 2005; UCLA Law School 2006. Looking into the European Crystal Ball: What Can the U.S. Learn About Same-Sex Marriage? Tulsa Gay and Lesbian History Project, October 2004; University of Connecticut, October 2004; Yale University, February 2005; American Psychological Association, August 2005; National Council of Family Relations (invited special session), 2005. Predicting Partnership Rights: Applying the European Experience to the United States, Yale University Law School, March 5, 2005. Asking the Right Questions: Making the Case for Sexual Orientation Data, Joint Statistical Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Toronto, August 2004; Williams Project Annual Update, UCLA, February 2005; Canadian Population Society, June 3, 2005. A New Gender Gap: Sex Differences in Registered Partnerships in Europe, International Association for Feminist Economics research conference, London, August 2004. Variations on an Equitable Theme: International Same-sex Partner Recognition Laws, Research Conference of International Associate for Feminist Economics, July 2002. Stockholm University, September 2003; University of Linz, Austria, November 2003; University of Amsterdam, June 2004; American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2004. The Myth of Gay Affluence and Other Tale Tales: The Political Economy of Sexual Orientation, University of California, San Diego, June 2002. "A Family Resemblance: Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partners in the United States," Research Conference of International Association for Feminist Economics, Oslo, Norway, June 2001; University of Southern Maine, October 2001; University of Massachusetts, February 2002; Washington University Political Science Department, March 2002; University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, April 2002. "A Movement and a Market: GLBT Economic Strategies for Social Change," University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, April 2002; Macalester College, April 2002. "Job Gendering: Occupational Choice and the Marriage Market," Research Conference of International Association for Feminist Economics, Ottawa, CA, June 1999. "Tolerance, Taboos, and Gender Identity: The Occupational Distribution of Lesbians and Gay Men," Research Conference of International Association for Feminist Economics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1998. M. V. Lee Badgett--page 11

The Impact of Affirmative Action on Public-Sector Employment in California, ASSA Meetings, 1997. Tolerance or Taboos: Occupational Differences by Sexual Orientation, presented at American Economic Association Meetings, January 1996, and American Psychological Association convention in Toronto, August 1996. "A Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Analysis of the 1990-91 Recession," ASSA Meetings 1995. "Choices and Chances: Is Coming Out at Work a Rational Choice?" The Sixth North American Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Studies Conference, University of Iowa, November 18, 1994. "Civil Rights and Civilized Research: Constructing a Sexual Orientation Policy Based on the Evidence," Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference, October 27, 1994 "Where the Jobs Went in the 1990-91 Downturn," National Conference on Race Relations and Civil Rights in the Post Reagan-Bush Era, The Roy Wilkins Center, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, October 1994. "Lesbian and Gay Campus Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits," The American Political Science Association meeting, September 1994. Panelist, "Developing Lesbian/Gay Studies in Economics," ASSA Meetings, 1994. "The Rainbow at Work: Differences in the Economic Status of Women Workers in the United States," presented at the 5th International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women, 1993. "The Economic Well-Being of Lesbians and Gay Men: Pride and Prejudice," December 1992, presented at 1993 ASSA Meetings. "Affirmative Action in a Changing Legal and Economic Environment," revised, December 1992, presented at 1993 ASSA Meetings. "The Effects of Structural Change on the Race and Gender Distribution of Employment," with Rhonda M. Williams, presented at Eastern Economic Association Meeting, 1992. "Changes in Racial Inequality Among Women: Evidence from Unemployment Rates," presented at AEA Meetings, 1992. "Labor Market Discrimination--Economic and Legal Issues for Gay Men and Lesbians," presented at AEA Meetings, 1992. "Rising Black Unemployment: Changes in Job Stability or in Employability?" presented at National Economic Assoc., 1992. "Rising Black Unemployment and the Role of Affirmative Action Policy," presented at APPAM Research Conference, October 1990. INVITED KEYNOTES AND OTHER PRESENTATIONS (Selected): Invited Keynote Speaker, Workshop on Comparative Experiences in Protection of LGBT Rights in the Family and Marriage Relations, hosted by Ministry of Justice, Viet Nam, and UNDP, December 20-21, 2012, Hanoi. When Gay People Get Married, London School of Economics and Politics, Keynote for LSE Pride Week, November 2012. Keynote speaker at Roundtable, "Taking Poverty Out of the Closet," Horizons Foundation, San Francisco, March 19, 2012. The Impact of Allowing Same-sex Couples to Marry, Australian National University College of Law. March 1, 2012; Gough Whitlam Institute, Sydney Australia, March 2, 2012. Australian Parliament, Canberra, "The Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry," February 27, 2012. M. V. Lee Badgett--page 12

Keynote lunch speaker, E-Marriage Symposium, Michigan State University Law School, My Marriage, No Marriage, November 11, 2011. When Gay People Get Married, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, October 13, 2011. IAFFE, 2011, Hangzhou China: Roundtable on Sexuality and the Economy, Roundtable on Enhancing IAFFEs Vision in the 21st Century. June, 2011. Panelist, Same-Sex Marriage: Past, Present and Future, M. V. Lee Badgett, David Boies, and Nancy Cott, UCLA History Department, February 24, 2011. Janus Lecture, Debate on same-sex marriage, Brown University, February 17, 2011. Panelist, "Queering Where We Work: Bridging LGBTQ Policy Advocacy, Front-Line Activism, and Research," University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, November 5, 2010. The Economic Value of Marriage, Drake Constitutional Law Center's Annual Symposium, The Same-Sex Marriage Divide, Drake University, Iowa. April 10, 2010. Keynote address, Out and Equal in the Workplace: Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Univ of Pittsburgh School of Law. March 18, 2010. When Gay People Get Married: Portland State Univ Portland, OR. 4/23/2010; University of Chicago Alumni Weekend, Chicago, IL; University of Chicago, June 3, 2010; Kennesaw State University, Atlanta, GA, March 24, 2010; Andrew Young School of Public Affairs; Georgia State University, March 25, 2010; and many other bookstores and locations. "Challenges for LGBT Workers" Department of Labor at invitation of Assistant Secretary for Policy, January 29, 2010. Keynote Address on Sexual orientation and economics, University of Illinois-Chicago, September 30, 2009. Multiple talks, University of Minnesota, Duluth, April 2009. On the Road to Equality: Health Care for LGBT Americans, Opening address, 2007 National LGBT Health Expo, Washington, DC, November 2, 2007. Does diversity make a difference? A view from the marketplace. Keynote Address, 7th annual international conference on diversity in organizations, communities, and nations, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1, 2007. Not-So-Gay Divorce: A Reason for Marriage, Gay Divorce Conference, Kings College London, May 20, 2006. Thinking for Change/Changing our Thinking: Effective Research in GLBT Policy Debates, Presidential Invited Address, Division 44, American Psychological Association Convention, August 2005. Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men, University of Toronto, March 16-17, 2005. Panelist, Aging in the Gay Community, American Association of Retired Persons, June 2000. Money and Our Discontents, Keynote speech, Smart Women/Smart Money conference by the Astraea Foundation. November 1999. "Homo Economics: The Myth of Gay Affluence and Other Tall Tales," University of Connecticut, March 1999; American University, October 1999. Same-Sex Couples and Public Policy, panel member, University of Maryland, College Park, October 1999. "A Bridge to the Future or the Road to Nowhere? Respectability and Lesbian and Gay Think Tanks," Remarks prepared for the Politics of Respectability Conference, University of Chicago, April 1999

Panelist, Unifying Anti-Subordination Theories, DePaul University Law School, February 1999. "Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals in a Gender Agenda," Roundtable on Feminism and Public Policy, 1998 ASSA Meetings, Chicago, IL. Economic Issues for Lesbians, Workshop on Lesbian Health Research Priorities, Institute of Medicine, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Washington, DC, October 6, 1997. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders: Who Gives, How Much, and Why, OutGiving Conference, Aspen, CO, September 1997; Horizons Foundation and United Way, San Francisco, CA, October 1997; NGLTF Creating Change conference, San Diego, November 1997; Cream City Foundation Milwaukee, WI; Chicago, IL; Boston Foundation, February 1998. Lesbian and Gay Money: Is There a Gender Gap? Towson State University, March 1997. Panelist, Out in the Workplace, University of Pennsylvania, February 10, 1997. Workplace Policy Issues for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People, Gender, Race, Economics, and Public Policy Conference of the New School for Social Research, April 5, 1996. Panelist, Compensating for Gender, Race, and Class Inequalities: Is Affirmative Action the Means to Social Justice, A Future of Equality: Feminist Rethinkings of the Affirmative Action and Welfare Debates, Yale University Womens Center, March 30, 1996. Equal Pay for Equal Work, University of Delaware Lavender Scholars Series, March 7, 1996. Lesbian and Gay Think Tanks, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, CUNY Graduate School, February 9, 1996. Panelist, Affirmative Action in the 21st Century, Chicago United, February 15, 1996. "The Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men: Discrimination, Data, and Debate," Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, June 15, 1995; Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, September 1995; University of Massachusetts, Boston, May 1996. Panelist, Gay Money: Power of the Purse, National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, October 19, 1995. Panelist, Domestic Partner Benefits and Other Gay Rights Policy Issues: Creating Change on Campus, American Association of University Professors, June 9, 1995. Prepared testimony, Select Education and Civil Rights Subcommittee, Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. House of Representatives, Testimony on the 30th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, 1994. (Hearing cancelled at the last minute.) "Economic Evidence of Sexual Orientation Discrimination," Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Studies Faculty Seminars, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Dept. of Economics and Program for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Concerns, May 11, 1994. "The Economics of Being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual: Pride, Prejudice and Politics," Brown Bag Series in Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, May 11, 1994. "Thinking Homo/Economically," conference presentation, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, CUNY Graduate School, May 7, 1994. "Lesbian and Gay Campus Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits," Annual Conference, The National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, Baruch College, CUNY, April 19, 1994. Also presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, September 1994. "The Changing Contours of Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Structural Economic Change," presented at University of Michigan, School of Social Work, Profs. Mary Corcoran and Sheldon Danziger, March, 15, 1994.

"Redefining Families: Research and Policy," American Political Science Association meetings, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1993. "A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Coming Out," presented at OUT Magazine press conference, broadcast on CSPAN, April 21, 1993. GRANTS: National Science Foundation, Building an Interdisciplinary Equal Employment Opportunity Research Network and Data Capacity, 7/1/13 to 6/30/16 ($245,216), co-PI. Five Colleges Inc (from Mellon Foundation): Bridging the Liberal Arts and Professional Training in Public Policy & Social Innovation ($178,000) Five Colleges Inc: Social Justice Public Policy Practitioners-in-Residence ($95,000) Ford Foundation, 2003-2006 (2 grants), Data on Sexual Orientation (total $600,000) 1995 Wayne F. Placek Award, American Psychological Foundation, The Impact of Attitudes on Lesbian and Gay Male Earnings and Occupations. ($15,000) The Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Giving and Volunteering, 1996. ($40,000) 2002 Wayne F. Placek Award, American Psychological Foundation, Health Insurance Inequality for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People, with Michael A. Ash. PANELS AND COMMITTEES: Chair, Diversity Committee, International Association for Feminist Economics, 2011-present. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM): Institutional representative, 2007-present and Vice Chair 2011-12; Program Committee for 2010 conference. Nat'l Association of Schools of Public Administration and Affairs (NASPAA): Leslie Whittington Teaching Award Committee, 2010. Advisory Committee for Real Families, Real Facts: Research Symposiums on LGBT-headed Families, Family Pride, held May 2006. Planning committee and facilitator for research meeting held at Out & Equal Workplace conference, September 2005. Reviewer, Wayne F. Placek Award, American Psychological Foundation Women's Funding Network, Lesbian Donor Research Project Advisory Committee, 1997-1998 Visiting Lecturer and co-designer, Traveling Feminist Economics Ph.D. Course, Univ. of Minnesota, 1997-1998 FELLOWSHIPS AND HONORS: Samuel F. Conti Faculty Fellowship, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2013-2014. When Gay People Get Married, Distinguished Book Award, American Psychological Association, Division 44, 2010; chosen for Diversity Book Club, Kennesaw State University, 2010. Distinguished Faculty Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, November 9, 2009, and Chancellors Medal (the highest honor bestowed on individuals for exemplary and extraordinary service to the campus) Named one of twenty most influential lesbians in academia, Curve Magazine, 2008 Rockwood Leadership Fellow in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community & Advocacy, 2008-09 2005 Dukeminier Award for Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Article College Outstanding Teacher Award, Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 2000-2001 Out 100, Out Magazine, 2001. One of Our Best and Brightest Activists, The Advocate, 2000. Lilly Fellow, Center for Teaching, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, 1999-2000 Certificate of Appreciation, Stonewall Center, 1999. Certificate of Recognition, University of Maryland at College Park Diversity Initiative, 1994-95 Graduate Opportunity Fellowship, 1985-86, UC Berkeley A.B. with General Honors, University of Chicago Maroon Key Society, University of Chicago Abram L. Harris Prize, 1978-79, 1979-80, University of Chicago AFFILIATIONS Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management American Economic Association Editorial Board (and past Associate Editor), Feminist Economics International Association for Feminist Economics (past board member) Editorial board, Sexuality Research and Social Policy ; Sexuality & the Law (Social Science Research Network); Law and Social Inquiry M. V. Lee Badgett--page 15

REFEREE: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Industrial Relations, Journal of Human Resources, Feminist Economics, Journal of Policy Analysis & Mgmt., Amer. Sociological Review, Review of Social Economy, Review of Economics and Statistics, Columbia University Press, National Science Foundation, Qualitative Sociology, Social Problems, Social Forces, University of Wisconsin Press, Journal of Population Economics, Routledge Press, Princeton University Press, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Demography, American Journal of Sociology, Contemporary Economic Policy, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Social Forces, Health Affairs, and others
EXHIBIT B
References 23 Pa. C.S. 1102, 1704, with Compiled Legislative History (Senate Bill No. 434, 1996 Legis. J. -- Senate 544, 2452-54; 1996 Legis. J. -- House 2016-35, 2186-87, 2193-94). Alms, James, J. Sebastian Leguizamon, and Suzanna Leguizamon. Revisiting the Income Tax Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (n.d.). Ash, Michael, and M. V. Lee Badgett, Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to Employment-Based Health Insurance on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People, Contemporary Economic Policy, 24: 582-599, 2006. Badgett, M.V. Lee, and Jody L. Herman. Patterns of Relationship Recognition by SameSex Couples in the United States. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, 2011, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Herman-MarriageDissolution-Nov-2011.pdf. Badgett, M. V. Lee, Unequal Taxes on Equal Benefits: The Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits, Center for American Progress and Williams Institute, December 2007. Badgett, M. V. Lee, Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men, University of Chicago Press, 2001. Badgett, M. V. Lee, When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, New York University Press, 2009. Badgett, M. V. Lee, Unequal Taxes on Equal Benefits: The Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits, Center for American Progress and Williams Institute, December 2007. 2008, pp. w399-w415. Becker, Gary, Treatise on the Family, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1991. Bernard, Tara Siegel and Ron Lieber, The High Price of Being a Gay Couple, New York Times, Oct. 3, 2009, at Al. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/yourmoney/03money.html (last accessed Sept. 4, 2012). Brief of American Companies as Amici in Support of Respondents, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 (Sup. Ct.), at 16, 4, 2. Bricker, Jesse, Arthur B. Kenneckell, Kevin B. Moore, and John Sabelhaus, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances Federal Reserve Bulletin 98, no. 2 (2012), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf.
-i-
Buchmueller, Thomas and Christopher S. Carpenter, Disparities in Health Insurance Coverage, Access, and Outcomes for Individuals in Same-Sex Versus Different-Sex Relationships, 20002007, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No. 3, March 2010, 489-495. Buettgens, M., S. Dorn and C. Carroll, Consider Savings as Well as Costs State Governments Would Spend at Least $90 Billion Less With the ACA than Without It from 2014 to 2019, July 2011, Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412361consider-savings.pdf (last accessed Nov. 13, 2013).
Colletta, Jen. Breaking News: Pa. grants domestic-partner benefits, Philadelphia Gay News (2009), available at http://www.epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?articleBreaking+News-+Pa-+grants+domestic-partner+benefits%20&id=2559458. Day, Nancy E., and Patricia Schoenrade, Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships between communication and sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 1997, pp. 147-163. DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-236(RV), September 2009. Drenkard, Scott. State and Local Sales Tax Rates: Midyear 2013. Washington: The Tax Foundation, August 28, 2013. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-taxrates-midyear-2013. Ellis, Allan L. and Ellen D. B. Riggle, The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness about one's sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(2), 1995, 75-85. Eskridge, William N. Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Free Press, New York, 1996. Estimates of charitable deductions and bequests to children: The Impact on Marylands Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M. V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Shawn Kravich, Adam P. Romero, R. Bradley Sears, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2007, pp. 295-339. Florida, Richard and Gary J. Gates, Technology and Tolerance: The Importance of Diversity to High-Tech Growth, The Brookings Institution Survey Series, Sept. 2001. Folbre, Nancy, Holding Hands at Midnight: The Paradox of Caring Labor, Feminist Economics, Vol. 1, 1995, pp. 73-92.
- ii -
Falk, Gene. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013, available at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32748.pdf. Gates, Gary, Marriage Equality and the Creative Class, Williams Institute, 2009. Gates, Gary, M.V. Lee Badgett, Jennifer Macomber, and Kate Chambers, Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States, Williams Institute and Urban Institute, March 2007. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, October 2013. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf. Griffith, Kristin H., and Michelle R. Hebl, The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: Coming out at work, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 2002, pp. 11911199. Goldberg, Naomi G., Michael D. Steinberger, and M.V. Lee Badgett. The Business Boost from Marriage Equality: Evidence from the Health and Marriage Equality in Massachusetts Survey. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, 2009, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/experts/lee-badgett/the-business-boost-from-marriageequality-evidence-from-the-health-and-marriage-equality-in-massachusetts-survey/. Naomi G. Goldberg, The Impact Of Inequality for Same-Sex Partners In EmployerSponsored Retirement Plans, Williams Institute, 2009. Hadley, Jack, John Holahan, Teresa Coughlin, and Dawn Miller, Covering the Uninsured In 2008: Current Costs, Sources Of Payment, And Incremental Costs, Health Affairs, 27, no.5. Heck, Julia E., Randall L. Sell, and Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin, Health Care Access Among Individuals Involved in Same-Sex Relationships, American Journal of Public Health, June 2006; 96(6), pp. 1111-1118. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Payments Per Enrollee, FY2010, available at http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-payments-per-enrollee/. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Federal and State Share of Medicaid Spending, 2011, available at http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federalstate-share-of-spending/. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Total Medicaid Spending, 2012, available at http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/.
- iii -
Internal Revenue Service. Charitable Bequests, by State of Residence. In SOI Tax StatsEstate Tax Statistics Filing Year Table 32. Washington DC, 2011, available at http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Estate-Tax-Statistics-Filing-Year-Table-3. Kassabian, David, Erika Huber, Elissa Cohen, and Linda Giannarelli. Table I.C.1: Asset Limits for Applicants. In Welfare Rules Databook. Washington DC: Urban Institute, 2012, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/databook_2012_final_nov2013_003.pdf. Lofquist, Daphne, Terry Lugaila, Martin OConnell, and Sarah Feliz, Households and Families: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, C2010BR-14, April 2012. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf (last accessed Sept. 4, 2012). National Funeral Directors Association. Trends and Statistics: 2012 Funeral Costs, 2012, available at http://nfda.org/about-funeral-service-/trends-and-statistics.html#fcosts. Nelson, Julie A., Household Economies of Scale in Consumption: Theory and Evidence, 56 Econometrica 1301, 1988. Office of Family Assistance. Pennsylvania. In Fiscal Year 2011 TANF Financial Data. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2011. PEBTF, About Us, available at https://www.pebtf.org/AboutUs/. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Mortality. Harrisburg, 2010, available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1275202/pa_vital_statistics_mortali ty_2010_pdf. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. Inheritance Tax. Harrisburg, 2014, available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/inheritance_tax/11414. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. Realty Transfer Tax. Accessed January 27, 2014, available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/realty_transfer_tax/11417. Pennsylvania Department of Welfare. Standard of Need. In Cash Assistance Handbook, 2013, available at http://services.dpw.state.pa.us/oimpolicymanuals/manuals/bop/ca/. Pennsylvania Personal Income Tax, No. PIT-08-002, Health, Accident or Death Plans Same-Sex Domestic Partner Benefits, March 7, 2008. Pollak, Robert A, A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 23, 1985, pp. 581-608.
- iv -
Ponce, Ninez A., Susan D. Cochran, Jennifer C. Pizer, and Vickie M. Mays, The Effects of Unequal Access to Health Insurance for Same-Sex Couples in California, Health Affairs, 2010: 29(8): 1539-1548. Ragins, Belle R., and John M. Cornwell, Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 2001, pp. 1244-1261. Ramos, Christopher, Naomi G. Goldberg, and M.V. Lee Badgett, The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on samesex couples, Williams Institute, May 2009. Register of Wills. Probate Fee Schedule. Philadelphia: Phila.gov, 2008, available at http://secureprod.phila.gov/wills/fees.aspx. Rosenblatt, Robert. Social Security: An Essential Asset and Insurance Protection for All. Social Security Brief No.26. Washington DC: National Academy of Social Insurance, 2008. Security Brief No. 26. Washington, DC: National Academy of Social Insurance. Rostosky, Sharon S., and Ellen D. B. Riggle, Out at Work: The relation of actor and partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 2002, at pp. 411-419. Sears, Bradley and Mallory, Christy. Economic Motives for Adopting LGBT-Related Workplace Policies, October 2011, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Mallory-Sears-Corp-Statements-Oct2011.pdf. Siegel Bernard, For Gay Employees, and Equalizer, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/your-money/health-insurance/21money.html?_r=0. U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Tables, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/ss-report-tables.xls (last accessed Sept. 4, 2012). U.S. Census Bureau, Supplemental Tables, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/supp-table-AFF.xls (last accessed June 17, 2013). U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hours Division, Fact Sheet #28F: Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, August 2013, available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28f.htm( last accessed 2/4/14). The Wedding Report. Pennsylvania- Complete Market Research, 2012, available at http://www.theweddingreport.com/wmdb/index.cfm?action=db.viewdetail&t=s&lc=35&set loc=y. -v-
Wood, Michael. Modest General Fund Revenue Growth Forecasted for 2013-14, 2013. https://pennbpc.org/modest-general-fund-revenue-growth-forecasted-2013-14. Zillow. Pennsylvania Home Prices and Home Values, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.zillow.com/local-info/PA-home-value/r_47/. Whitewood v. Corbett, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, July 9, 2013. Whitewood v. Corbett, Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to All Defendants, September 19, 2013. Whitewood v. Corbett, Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories Directed to All Defendants, September 19, 2013. Whitewood v. Corbett, Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures, September 23, 2013. Whitewood v. Corbett, Initial Disclosures of Defendants Thomas W. Corbett and Michael Wolf Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), September 23, 2013. Whitewood v. Corbett, Initial Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Disclosures of Defendant Petrille, September 23, 2013. Whitewood v. Corbett, Initial Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Disclosures of Defendant Poknis, September 24, 2013. Whitewood v. Wolf, Response of Defendants to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Directed to All Defendants, December 16, 2013. Whitewood v. Wolf, Response of Defendants to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, December 16, 2013.
- vi -
EXHIBIT PX-02
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WHITEWOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF, et al., Defendants.
EXPERT REPORT OF LEONORE F. CARPENTER I, Leonore F. Carpenter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the following are my true and correct opinions: I 1. SUMMARY OF EXPERT OPINIONS I have been asked for my expert opinion regarding legal disadvantages
that same-sex couples in Pennsylvania experience as a result of the Commonwealths refusal to either issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or to recognize valid same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions.1
It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth. 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1704 (hereinafter Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion).
2.
I intend to offer information that will demonstrate that Pennsylvanias
marriage exclusion disadvantages same-sex couples in Pennsylvania across a spectrum of legal issues. This report is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of these disadvantages; instead, it will highlight those that, in my opinion, impact the largest number of same-sex couples in Pennsylvania or impact couples in the most damaging ways. The disadvantages I will discuss in this report include, but are not limited, to: estate planning; taxation; health care; and family law. However, there are hundreds of laws in the Commonwealth that are impacted by marital status, any one of which may affect a given same-sex couple at any given time. 3. I further intend to offer information that will demonstrate that neither
the United States v. Windsor2 decision nor the federal governments response to that decision eliminates the disadvantages that I will describe. I will describe how, for certain Pennsylvania residents, federal recognition of their marriages in the face of Commonwealth non-recognition in fact creates additional layers of legal complication that only state-level recognition of their marriages will ameliorate.
570 U.S. ____ (2013) (invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act on constitutional grounds).
II 4.
BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS I have been retained by Plaintiffs as an expert witness in the above-
captioned matter. 5. My background and experience are summarized in my curriculum
vitae, which is attached to this report as Exhibit 1. 6. I am employed as an Assistant Professor of Law at Temple
Universitys James E. Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia. I have been employed in this capacity at Temple since July of 2008. 7. My academic specializations are in the areas of: sexual orientation,
gender identity and law; public interest law generally; and legal research and writing. My current research focuses on the intersection between lawyering for disadvantaged communities and the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) civil rights movement. I have spoken extensively on legal issues affecting LGBT people, as reflected in my curriculum vitae. 8. Prior to joining the Temple faculty, I worked as an attorney at
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit that provided, among other services, direct legal services to LGBT Pennsylvanians across a broad range of legal issues. Most of Equality Advocates clients were low or low-middle income. I was employed at Equality Advocates from 2001-2008.
9.
From 2005 until my departure in 2008, I was the legal director at
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania. As legal director, I was tasked with supervising all Legal Department personnel, coordinating litigation on behalf of LGBT clients, representing clients in legal matters, fundraising, and determining allocation of resources within the Legal Department. 10. As Legal Director, I was responsible for analyzing the organizations
intake statistics. I used aggregated numbers of requests for assistance that reached my office through our telephone hotline, e-mail, and walk-in office visits to determine which areas of legal need were most pressing for Pennsylvanias LGBT citizens. After analyzing that data I developed programs and services that would meet the most acute legal needs of our target population. 11. From 2003 until 2005, I was a staff attorney at Equality Advocates.
From 2001 until 2003, I was employed there as an Equal Justice Works Fellow. As a Fellow, I represented LGBT victims of violence in Pennsylvania, including victims of hate crimes, intimate partner violence, and school bullying. 12. I currently serve on the Board of Directors and the Legal Advisory
Board of the Mazzoni Center, an LGBT health and wellbeing nonprofit located in Philadelphia. The Mazzoni Center absorbed the legal department
of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania in 2009. In my capacity as Legal Advisory Board member, I provide technical assistance and advice to the Mazzoni Center Legal Department on matters relating to LGBT-focused legal services in Pennsylvania. 13. In addition, I regularly consult with private attorneys across the state
regarding the legal challenges faced by their LGBT clients; those challenges are often linked to those clients inability to marry or have their marriages recognized in Pennsylvania. 14. I remain actively licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. I was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth in 2001. I received my juris doctor in 2000 from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where I received the Beth Cross Award for commitment to underserved populations. I received a Bachelor of Arts in American Studies from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, in 1995. 15. 16. I have not previously served as an expert witness in any other matter. For my work on this matter, I am being compensated at a flat rate of
$1,000 for my written report. In the event that I am deposed or called to testify at trial, I am being compensated at a rate of $300 per hour.
17.
My opinions in this matter are based upon my own research and upon
my experience personally representing or supervising the representation of Pennsylvanias LGBT citizens. III PENNSYLVANIAS MARRIAGE EXCLUSION STRIPS SAMESEX SURVIVING PARTNERS OF THE RIGHT TO INHERIT A DECEASED PARTNERS PROPERTY IF THE DECEDENT DIES WITHOUT A WILL. In Pennsylvania, the surviving spouse of an intestate decedent inherits
18.
the entire estate, unless there is a surviving child or parent of the decedent.3 Even in the event that the intestate decedent is survived by parents or children, the surviving spouse still takes a share of the estate.4 19. However, Pennsylvania prohibits recognition of same-sex couples as
spouses.5 Thus, the protections available to the surviving spouses of intestate decedents are denied to same-sex partners, regardless of the financial interdependence of the relationship or the existence of a valid outof-state marriage license. 20. As a consequence of the interaction between Pennsylvanias marriage
exclusion and its intestate succession statute, same-sex couples (even those
3 4 5
20 Pa. C.S.A. 2102 (1). 20 Pa. C.S.A. 2102 (2) (5). 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1704.
holding valid out-of-state marriage licenses) who fail to, cannot afford to, or do not know to execute reciprocal wills, will be totally disinherited upon the death of their partners. 6 21. However, not all same-sex couples in the Commonwealth are aware
of the need to execute reciprocal wills, despite vigorous public education efforts by LGBT advocacy groups. Of those who are aware, not all can afford the cost of obtaining professional-quality wills. Some free legal services are available (such as those that my office provided at Equality Advocates), but the nonprofits that provide such services are far too small and underfunded to meet the overwhelming demand for this service across a geographic area as large as the Commonwealth.7 22. The U.S. Supreme Courts recent invalidation of the federal Defense
of Marriage Act in Windsor 8 does nothing to mitigate the harms suffered by the surviving partners of intestate decedents. Intestate succession is
20 Pa. C.S.A. 2103 (1) (6) (in the absence of a surviving spouse, the order of intestate succession is as follows: issue; parents; brothers, sisters, or their issue; grandparents; uncles, aunts, and their children, and grandchildren; the Commonwealth).
7
Over 22,000 couples in Pennsylvania self-identified as same-sex couples in the 2010 census, according to a report by UCLAs Williams Institute. Pennsylvania Census Snapshot: 2010, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Census2010Snapshot_Pennsylvania_v2.pdf (last accessed January 15, 2014).
8
Windsor, supra note 2.
governed entirely by state statute, and is not affected by the recognition or non-recognition of marriages of same-sex couples by the federal government. IV PENNSYLVANIAS MARRIAGE EXCLUSION DENIES SAME-SEX PARTNERS THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO MAKE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR HOSPITALIZED PARTNERS WHO ARE INCAPACITATED. Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion negatively affects the rights of
23.
same-sex partners to make decisions for and even visit their partners in the hospital. These negative effects are not fully ameliorated by recent changes to federal law. Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion means that, even where a same-sex couple is validly married, the immediate families of incapacitated lesbian or gay patients can step in and override the decision-making authority of the patients spouse. In Pennsylvania, 20 Pa. C.S.A. 5451 et seq. governs healthcare
A.
24.
powers of attorney. 25. Healthcare powers of attorney in Pennsylvania confer broad power
upon the healthcare agent to obtain information regarding the principals physical condition, and to make critical decisions regarding the principals health care (including decisions regarding treatment options, and the
withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment).9 Normally, those powers do not go into effect until an attending physician determines that the principal is incompetent.10 26. In the absence of a pre-existing healthcare power of attorney naming
an agent for an incompetent individual, Pennsylvania law provides for the naming of a healthcare representative who is vested with almost all of the powers of a healthcare agent.11 27. A competent patient who has not completed a power of attorney
naming a healthcare agent is free, either orally or in writing, to designate a healthcare representative.12 28. In the event that a patient has not executed a power of attorney and
also cannot communicate his or her wishes regarding the naming of a healthcare representative, Pennsylvania law provides an automatic order of priority for the naming of a healthcare representative. The order is as follows: spouse; adult child; parent; adult brother or sister; adult grandchild; and finally, [a]n adult who has knowledge of the principal's preferences and
9
20 Pa. C.S.A. 5456. 20 Pa. C.S.A. 5454. 20 Pa. C.S.A. 5461. Id.
10 11 12
values, including, but not limited to, religious and moral beliefs, to assess how the principal would make health care decisions.13 29. Pennsylvania law specifically provides that an individual with higher
priority on the above list may displace an individual lower on the priority list as healthcare representative, even if the lower-priority individual has already assumed the role of representative.14 Thus, Pennsylvania law inarguably reflects the determination that a spouse is the most appropriate person to act as healthcare representative, even where immediate family may wish to take on that role. 30. When the law regarding the automatic designation of healthcare
representatives interacts with Pennsylvanias ban on same-sex marriage, the result is this: if a lesbian or gay individual does not possess a valid healthcare power of attorney that names his or her partner as the healthcare agent, and the individual is incompetent or incapable of communicating a preference for a particular person as a healthcare representative, the partner will be last in order of priority to make medical decisions. Even if the couple is legally married in another state, Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion acts directly to prevent recognition of the partner as a spouse, instead
13 14
Id. Id.
10
relegating the same-sex spouse to the catch-all category at the bottom of the healthcare representative hierarchy. 31. Thus, as a direct result of Pennsylvanias same-sex marriage ban, an
immediate family member of the incompetent partner may displace the same-sex partner or spouse as healthcare representative if no arrangements have been made prior to the patients incompetency. 32. I have personally witnessed the result of Pennsylvanias marriage
exclusion in the healthcare context. While employed as the legal director of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, I attempted to assist a same-sex couple when one of the women, who had not executed a healthcare power of attorney, suffered a stroke. The stroke patient and her partner were a longterm committed couple, and the partner had initially cared for the patient at a hospital in the Lehigh Valley near their home. However, within a few days, the patients estranged mother traveled from Philadelphia to the Lehigh Valley, and demanded to be named the healthcare representative over the objections of the partner. The patient, while conscious and aware, was unable to speak, so the hospital complied with the demand, and the patients mother took the patient to Philadelphia and had her admitted to a rehabilitation hospital there against the partners wishes. On the partners request, I traveled to the rehabilitation hospital to assess the competence of
11
the patient, ascertain her wishes, and execute a healthcare power of attorney to place power back in the hands of her partner if that was the patients wish. Although the patient was unable to verbally communicate and likely had experienced some cognitive deficit, it was clear to me after a lengthy interview (at which the partner was not present) that she was able to point to written words to indicate clear commitment to choices and that her answers were consistent and logical. She expressed her desire for her partner to make decisions regarding her care and for me to prepare a healthcare power of attorney. Convinced that the patient was competent and capable of expressing her wishes to me, I left, prepared the necessary documents, and returned a few days later with witnesses. However, I was prevented from finalizing the documents by the patients mother and sister, who, with the support of a hospital social worker, forced me to leave against my clients wishes. 33. If Pennsylvania had not prohibited these women from marrying, the
partner would have automatically been named healthcare representative. She would have been able to make decisions about where her partner should have been treated and the course of that treatment, and hospital staff would have been compelled by law to respect those decisions.
12
34.
The recent Supreme Court decision in Windsor does nothing to alter
Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of first priority designation as health care representatives. B. New federal regulations do not fully ameliorate the effects of Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion on hospital decision-making and visitation. In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the
35.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations that would require Medicare and Medicaid-funded hospitals to respect the rights of their patients to designate visitors without discriminating based upon sexual orientation. The Presidential Memorandum further directed HHS to promulgate regulations explicitly requiring federally funded hospitals to respect existent powers of attorney or other advance directives.15 36. In compliance with the Presidential Memorandum, HHS promulgated
federal regulations that forbid visitation discrimination based upon sexual orientation and require hospitals to make patients aware of their rights with respect to designating visitors.16 The new regulations also require hospitals
15
Presidential Memorandum Hospital Visitation (April 15, 2010), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospitalvisitation (last accessed January 15, 2014).
16
42 C.F.R. 482.13(h) requires as follows:
13
to inform patients of their right to either personally participate in their plan of care, or have their designated healthcare representative do so on their behalf.17 37. This federal action is likely to create disincentives for hospitals to
simply exclude same-sex partners or spouses from decision-making or visitation based on hospital staffs personal biases, and where there is otherwise no conflict about the partner/spouses primary place in the life of the patient. However, the new rules contain a critical limitation that blunts their effectiveness in the event of a conflict between a same-sex partner/spouse and the patients immediate family. As both the new
Standard: Patient visitation rights. A hospital must have written policies and procedures regarding the visitation rights of patients, including those setting forth any clinically necessary or reasonable restriction or limitation that the hospital may need to place on such rights and the reasons for the clinical restriction or limitation. A hospital must meet the following requirements: (1) Inform each patient (or support person, where appropriate) of his or her visitation rights, including any clinical restriction or limitation on such rights, when he or she is informed of his or her other rights under this section. (2) Inform each patient (or support person, where appropriate) of the right, subject to his or her consent, to receive the visitors whom he or she designates, including, but not limited to, a spouse, a domestic partner (including a same-sex domestic partner), another family member, or a friend, and his or her right to withdraw or deny such consent at any time. (3) Not restrict, limit, or otherwise deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. (4) Ensure that all visitors enjoy full and equal visitation privileges consistent with patient preferences. See also 42 C.F.R. 485.635(f) (similar rule for designated Critical Access Hospitals, which are rural community hospitals that receive cost-based federal reimbursement).
17
42 C.F.R. 482.13(a), (b).
14
regulations and the Interpretive Guidelines from HHSs Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS) make abundantly clear, the regulations - while intended to honor same-sex relationships where possible are not intended to override state law. 38. The regulations empower the patient, or when appropriate, the
patients representative (as allowed under State law) to make certain decisions about the patients care, thus deferring to each states law to identify the alternative decision-maker. The CMS Interpretive Guidelines to 482.13(h)(1)&(2) the portion of the regulation that forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation clarify that the regulations allow the naming of a so-called support person who is close to the patient, but who may not be the same person as the patients healthcare representative.18 The support person may be a same-sex partner. That person may visit, and may, where there is otherwise no conflict, make certain decisions regarding the control of flow of other visitors.19 However, as the Guidelines make clear, the regulations do not empower the support persons wishes to
18
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies, Interpretive Guidelines to 482.13(h)(1)&(2), available at http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-andGuidance/Guidance/Transmittals/Downloads/R75SOMA.pdf (last accessed January 30, 2014).
19
Id.
15
supplant those of a person named as healthcare representative under state law.20 39. Thus, in Pennsylvania, where an incompetent patient has not
expressed his or her wishes, and there is a conflict between the same-sex partner/spouse and the patients immediate family, Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion will mean that immediate family may still displace a same-sex partner/spouse as the person who makes critical medical decisions, and may even allow the family to exclude the same-sex partner from visitation.21
20
In the event that a patient has both a representative and a support person who are not the same individual, and they disagree on who should be allowed to visit the patient, the hospital must defer to the decisions of the patients representative. As the individual responsible for making decisions on the patients behalf, the patients representative has the authority to exercise a patients right to designate and deny visitors just as the patient would if he or she were capable of doing so. The designation of, and exercise of authority by, the patients representative is governed by State law, including statutory and case law. Id.
21
See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/14/same-sex-partner-bannedhospital/3524889/ (An Indiana woman was barred from visiting her unconscious partner in the hospital on the orders of the patients mother, who did not approve of the relationship; the article notes the legal uncertainty inherent in such instances, even in the face of the new CFRs.).
16
V PENNSYLVANIAS MARRIAGE EXCLUSION CAUSES SAME-SEX PARTNERS AND SPOUSES TO INCUR SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL TAXES, RESULTING IN FINANCIAL INSTABILITY FOR LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES. 40. Pennsylvanias refusal to allow or recognize same-sex marriages
results in significant inequities in taxation, the most significant of which are described herein. A. Pennsylvania (Commonwealth and Municipal) Realty Transfer Tax
41.
In Pennsylvania, transfers of real estate are ordinarily subject to realty
transfer taxes, usually at both the Commonwealth and municipal level. 42. The Commonwealth realty transfer tax rate is 1% of the value of the
realty transferred.22 43. The Commonwealth, however, exempts some transactions from the
transfer tax when the transfer either occurs under a certain set of enumerated circumstances, or where the transfer occurs between certain family members.23 Spouses are included as family members for this purpose, but unmarried cohabitants are not.24
22 23 24
72 P.S. 8102-C. 72 P.S. 8102-C.3.
61 Pa. Code 91.193 specifies that transfers between the following family members are exempt from tax: husband and wife; lineal ascendent--parent, grandparent, great grandparent and the like--and lineal descendent--child, grandchild, great grandchild and
17
44.
Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion thus acts to prohibit same-sex
couples (even if validly married) from adding one anothers name to the deed to property without having to pay a Commonwealth tax in the amount of 1% of the value of the transferred property. 45. Municipalities may impose additional realty transfer taxes subject to
the same limitations as the Commonwealth.25 46. The rate of realty transfer taxes assessed by municipalities varies.
For instance, the realty transfer tax is 3% in Philadelphia26, but the tax in Allentown is 1%.27 47. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Devlin v. City of Philadelphia
has determined that municipalities may not attempt to take into consideration the fact that same-sex couples are forbidden to marry in order to specifically provide those couples with tax exemptions normally reserved
the like; children of the same parentsiblings; a lineal ascendent--parent, grandparent, great grandparent and the like--of a child and the spouse of the child, unless the child is deceased and the child's spouse has remarried; an individual and the individual's sibling's spouse, unless the sibling is deceased and the sibling's spouse has remarried; and persons who were previously married but who have since been divorced, if the transferred realty was acquired by both spouses or by either spouse before or during their marriage.
25 26 27
72 P.S. 8101-D. http://www.phila.gov/Revenue/individuals/taxes/Pages/RealtyTransferTax.aspx.
http://www.lehighcounty.org/Departments/ClerkofJudicialRecords/RecorderofDeeds/F AQs/tabid/1314/Default.aspx#What_is_realty_transfer_tax.
18
for married couples or immediate family.28 Municipalities may only provide a realty transfer tax exemption to all unmarried couples, including heterosexual couples who have chosen not to marry, or not provide it at all.29 48. A recently filed Pennsylvania Department of Revenue appeal
demonstrates how the Commonwealths refusal to recognize same-sex marriages can create considerable tax burdens for Pennsylvanians who attempt to add financially interdependent same-sex partners to deeds.30 Donna Torrisi and Judith Palmer have resided together for over thirty years in Pennsylvania. They have raised two children together, and were validly married in New York. When Torrisi added Palmers name to the deed of their shared residence, they attempted to file the deed as spouses, but were assessed over $4,000 in taxes by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, including charges for municipal taxes that the municipality itself had agreed to waive.31
28
862 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 2004) (providing a waiver of Philadelphias real estate transfer tax to same-sex couples but not unmarried heterosexual couples violates the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution).
29
Philadelphia has provided a realty transfer tax exemption to both opposite-sex and same-sex unmarried financially interdependent persons. Phila. Code 19-1402(28).
30
Donna L. Torrisi & Judith Palmers Appeal to the Board of Appeals, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, for Pennsylvania Realty Transfer Tax Notice of Assessment, Control Number 2013-3249-46.
31
Id.
19
49.
Pennsylvania practitioners report that title companies hired to manage
deed transfers frequently mishandle the realty transfer tax when transferring property between same-sex couples who are validly married. Some title companies assume that the taxes do not apply, and will pass this erroneous information on to the property owners, who then unexpectedly owe the taxes once the error is detected. B. 50. Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania assesses taxes on inherited
property. The rate of tax is dependent upon the relationship between the decedent and the individual inheriting property. Spouses pay no inheritance tax, other family members pay a tax ranging from 0% to 12%, and all other persons pay the highest rate of 15%.32 51. Pennsylvania prohibits same-sex couples from being considered as
spouses for purposes of assessing inheritance taxes owed to the Commonwealth. 52. Thus, a surviving same-sex partner or spouse who inherits under a
will faces a 15% tax burden compared to 0% for a surviving opposite-sex spouse.
32
72 P.S. 9116.
20
53.
Another recently filed Pennsylvania Department of Revenue appeal
illustrates the effect of Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion in the inheritance tax context.33 Catherine Burgi-Rios and Barbara Baus were same-sex partners who lived together in a committed relationship for over 15 years. They were legally married in Connecticut, titled their property jointly, and executed wills leaving property to one another. Upon Ms. Burgi-Rios death from cancer, the Commonwealth assessed the taxes owed by Ms. Baus at over $10,000, reflecting the rate of 15% owed by legal strangers instead of 0% owed by spouses. 54. The imposition of the statewide realty transfer tax and the 15%
inheritance tax places same-sex couples in a very difficult position with respect to planning for the death of a partner or spouse, particularly where only one of them is the owner of the primary residence that the couple shares. While I was employed at Equality Advocates, I responded to many requests for assistance from low- and middle- income Pennsylvanians who were the sole owners of a primary residence in which the owner resided with a same-sex partner. The callers wished to ensure that their partners or spouses would not lose their primary residence upon the death of the owner.
33
In re Estate of Catherine C. Burgi-Rios, Deceased, Northampton County Orphans Court No. 1310 of 2012. The author of this Report is co-counsel in the referenced matter.
21
Their choices in Pennsylvania were limited and fraught with difficulty. To ensure the partner received title to the property, the owner could add the partner/spouses name to the deed, but that would result in an immediate and potentially prohibitive transfer tax bill. (This was a particular problem if the property had significantly appreciated since it was purchased or inherited.) And such a transfer would not, because of Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion, avoid the inheritance tax on the inherited half of the propertys value. The owner could instead choose to name the partner/spouse as the beneficiary of the property in a will, but that still would not avoid the imposition of inheritance taxes (in this instance for the full value) upon the surviving partner/ spouse, who might be unable to pay the taxes without selling the property. 55. I often advised same-sex couples to purchase additional life insurance
policies for the sole purpose of obtaining money upon one partners death to use to pay the 15% inheritance tax to the Commonwealth. Such life insurance policies might cost couples hundreds of dollars per year, and may be unaffordable to low-income couples or those on fixed incomes who might still own valuable property as a result of appreciation. And even where couples can afford this expense, it means that the proceeds from the life insurance policy that would otherwise go to helping the widow or widower
22
have financial security in his or her senior years must be paid to the Commonwealth. 56. The difficulties and additional expenses described above exist solely
as an effect of Pennsylvanias refusal to either recognize or allow same-sex marriage. Were Pennsylvania to allow same-sex marriage, same-sex partners could pass property to one another through a will without incurring inheritance tax, and they could add a partners name to the deed of their residence without incurring realty transfer tax. 57. The recent Supreme Court decision in Windsor does nothing to alter
Pennsylvanias tax treatment of same-sex couples. VI PENNSYLVANIAS MARRIAGE EXCLUSION DESTABILIZES FAMILIES BY DENYING FAMILIES FORMED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES THE PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAGE THAT COMES WITH MARRIAGE. The Commonwealths refusal to issue marriage licenses to or
58.
acknowledge the valid marriages of same-sex couples creates legal uncertainty with regard to the relationship between the couple and the children born into the family. The process by which the marriage exclusion directly results in a legally uncertain parent-child relationship is described below. 59. In Pennsylvania, a child born into an intact marriage is presumed to be
the natural child of both parents. This is a common-law doctrine in the

23
Commonwealth, the main purpose of which is to prevent intact families from being disrupted by outsiders claiming to be the actual biological parents of children born to marriages.34 60. According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the presumption of
paternity embodies the fiction that regardless of biology, the married people to whom the child was born are the parents.35 Consequently, the presumption of paternity is unrebuttable when, at the time the husband's paternity is challenged, mother, her husband, and the child comprise an intact family wherein the husband has assumed parental responsibilities for the child. Under other circumstances, the presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that either of the following circumstances was true at the time of conception: the presumptive father, i.e., the husband, was physically incapable of procreation because of impotency or sterility, or the presumptive father had no access to his wife, i.e., the spouses were physically separated and thus were unable to have had sexual relations.36
34
See K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798, 809 (Pa. 2012) (The legal fictions perpetuated through the years (including the proposition that genetic testing is irrelevant in certain paternity-related matters) retain their greatest force where there is truly an intact family attempting to defend itself against third-party intervention.).
35 36
Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. 1997).
Vargo v. Schwartz, 940 A.2d 459, 463 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
24
61.
Other states that permit the recognition of same-sex relationships have
permitted same-sex couples to enjoy the parentage presumption on the same footing as heterosexual couples.37 62. In Pennsylvania, no doctrinal impediment exists in family law that
would preclude the application of the presumption of parentage to a nonbiological parent in a same-sex couple. The only law that prevents the presumption from applying to same-sex couples is Pennsylvanias prohibition on same-sex marriage. 63. Without access to the parentage presumption, children born to same-
sex-headed households are placed in a legally tenuous position. 64. For example, two women may together decide to have a child by one
partner conceiving with anonymously donated sperm and giving birth to a child that both women would raise. Without the parentage presumption, when that child is born, he or she will have only one legal parent. The other woman will be a legal stranger to the baby, regardless of her intent to parent and regardless of any marriage to the birth mother.
37
See e.g. Gartner v. Iowa Dept. of Public Health, 830 N.W. 2d 335 (Iowa 2013) (holding that Iowas presumption of parentage must be applied equally to same-sex parents regardless of gendered statutory language); Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 912 A.2d 951, 971 (Vt. 2006) (Supreme Court of Vermont, while not resolving the question of whether the statutory presumption must apply in the instance of a civil union, did find that, in accordance with the common law, the couple's legal union at the time of the child's birth is extremely persuasive evidence of joint parentage.).
25
65.
As another example, two women may together decide to have a child
using the assistance of a known sperm donor. Without the parentage presumption, when that child is born, the baby will have no legal relationship to the woman who intended to be a parent but did not give birth to the child. Instead, under certain circumstances, the childs second parent would be the sperm donor, a person who likely had no intention to raise or financially support the baby.38 In either case, the partner would have no parental rights unless the couple pursued additional legal protections. 66. In order to create the stability and predictability that usually
accompanies the presumption of parentage, same-sex couples must instead undergo the significant expense and time commitment of effectuating a second-parent adoption. The child lacks legal ties to one of his or her parents until the adoption is completed .39 67. The cost of second parent adoptions in Pennsylvania varies from
county to county but generally falls between the range of $2,000.00 and $5,000.00, inclusive of attorney fees and court costs. The process may take
38
See Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (known sperm donor considered parent and liable for child support).
39
See In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002) (clarifying that second-parent adoption is available in Pennsylvania).
26
between 2 and 12 months to complete.40 Some judicial districts within Pennsylvania require a home study, in which a social worker visits the family home and conducts an investigation into the background of the couple to determine if it is a suitable environment for the child.41 This adds significantly to the time and expense of the second parent adoption process. 68. Because of these costs and the scarcity of pro bono counsel for these
often-complex proceedings, some families are unable to afford to obtain a second parent adoption and the child is left without a legal relationship with one of his or her parents. 69. Because the presumption of parentage is unavailable and families
must consequently undergo second-parent adoptions for children born to intact same-sex relationships, courts must expend resources that might otherwise be conserved. 70. Some same-sex headed families move to Pennsylvania from
jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage.42 These families may not

40
This information, although difficult to independently ascertain, was supplied by experienced adoption practitioners.
41 42
For example, Chester County requires a home study, while Lehigh County does not.
According to the 2010 United States Census, over 3,000 same-sex couples identified as husband or wife, as opposed to unmarried partner. A portion of those couples have likely moved from marriage equality states. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Census2010Snapshot_Pennsylva nia_v2.pdf (last accessed February 7, 2013).
27
have completed second parent adoptions given the presumption of parenthood they enjoyed under their former states law.43 They may be moving to the Commonwealth without any legal protection for their families except for their marriages. Thus, not only may these couples find their marriages invalidated upon arriving in the Commonwealth, they may also lose the legal relationship between the non-biological parent and the child.44 71. Families that move from states that recognize a presumption of
parentage will not be informed upon relocating that the legal relationship between the non-biological parent and the child has been severed. There is no Commonwealth administrative agency that accepts the responsibility for informing relocating same-sex couples that they have been stripped of all of their marriage-based rights. Particularly with regard to the parent-child relationship, the effects are not intuitively understandable. Only the most
43
In fact, a New York trial court recently refused to allow a same-sex couple to complete a second-parent adoption under the theory that New Yorks presumption of parentage rendered second-parent adoption redundant. N.Y. Judge Alarms Gay Parents By Finding Marriage Law Negates Need for Adoption, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/nyregion/ny-judge-alarms-gay-parents-by-findingmarriage-law-negates-need-for-adoption.html?_r=0 (last accessed February 13, 2014).
44
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, supra, is instructive here. In that case, a couple lived in Vermont, which recognized their relationship as a civil union, and thus recognized the nonbiological mother as a parent under the parental presumption. When the couple , the biological mother moved with the child to Virginia, which did not recognize the relationship. She then attempted to move jurisdiction over the custody action to Virginia, which would not have recognized the parentage of the non-biological mother because it stemmed from recognition of the relationship. Several years of bitter litigation ensued, after which the biological mother fled to South America with the child.
28
well-informed couples will even understand that they must suddenly seek out a second-parent adoption for a child with whom they have both had legal parent-child relationships for years. 72. For families that are unable to establish a legal parent-child
relationship through second-parent adoption, and those that are unaware that they need to do so when moving across state lines, the consequences are significant and troubling. For example: i. The non-legal parent may not be able to make decisions on behalf of the child, such as consenting to medical treatment or even signing permissions slips for school field trips. ii. If the sole legal parent dies or is incapacitated, it is unclear whether the child would even be permitted to remain with the non-legal parent, particularly where there is conflict with the biological parents family. iii. The child may not be eligible for coverage under the nonbiological parents medical insurance. iv. If the couple breaks up and there is a custody dispute, the court will not be permitted under Pennsylvania law to treat the nonbiological parent equally. The non-biological parent would have to first prove that he or she even has standing to proceed, by
29
establishing that he or she stands in loco parentis to the child. This requires significant additional factual findings and can add a layer of complication onto custody proceedings, during which time the non-biological parent may be cut off from access to the child.45 v. Even where the non-biological parent can establish that he or she has standing to proceed, the scales are tipped toward the biological parent being awarded primary custody. This tipping can only be overcome with clear and convincing evidence a higher evidentiary standard than the normal preponderance of evidence standard- that the child ought not to primarily reside with the biological parent.46 Thus, a court may believe itself to be constrained to award primary custody to the biological parent even though the non-biological parent may actually be a more preferable choice.
45 46
See T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa. 2001).
Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (where same-sex couple had not effectuated a second-parent adoption, non-biological mother was able to obtain primary custody of children after demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that such an arrangement was in the childrens best interests).
30
VII
PENNSYLVANIAS MARRIAGE EXCLUSION DENIES SEPARATED COUPLES ACCESS TO THE MECHANISM OF DIVORCE AS A MEANS FOR THE EFFICIENT RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES ARISING FROM THEIR SEPARATION, AND PREVENTS VALIDLY MARRIED SAMESEX COUPLES FROM LEGALLY ENDING THE SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP. Like other couples, same-sex couples are sometimes able to build
73.
lifelong intimate partnerships that only terminate with the death of a partner. However, like other couples, same-sex couples sometimes break up. 74. When married couples in the Commonwealth no longer wish to
remain together, they have access to the mechanism of divorce to sort out their affairs. 75. The purpose of divorce is to effectively, fairly, and efficiently dissolve
a relationship in a manner that affords the parties dignity and carefully considers the needs of children. According to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 31(a), the public policy behind an orderly divorce process is as follows: The family is the basic unit in society and the protection and preservation of the family is of paramount public concern. Therefore, it is the policy of the Commonwealth to: (1) Make the law for legal dissolution of marriage effective for dealing with the realities of matrimonial experience. (2) Encourage and effect reconciliation and settlement of differences between spouses, especially where children are involved. (3) Give primary consideration to the welfare of the family rather than the vindication of private rights or the punishment of matrimonial wrongs. (4) Mitigate the harm to the spouses and their children caused by the legal dissolution of the marriage.
31
(5) Seek causes rather than symptoms of family disintegration and cooperate with and utilize the resources available to deal with family problems. (6) Effectuate economic justice between parties who are divorced or separated and grant or withhold alimony according to the actual need and ability to pay of the parties and insure a fair and just determination and settlement of their property rights. 76. The public policies underlying the divorce process apply with equal
force to same-sex couples, who may also need assistance with the orderly unwinding of long-term relationships. However, because Pennsylvania prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and refuses to acknowledge valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, courts have refused to allow same-sex couples to use the mechanism of divorce to divide assets and resolve disputes stemming from the dissolution of a relationship.47 77. Married same-sex couples who wish to divorce in the Commonwealth
but are prohibited from doing so face two significant categories of problems. The first category of problems stems from the couples inability to access the normal procedure that has been established for dissolving a relationship. The second category of problems stems from the fact that the couple will continue to be viewed by the federal government and other states as a married couple. These two categories of problem are discussed below.
47
See, e.g., Kern v. Taney, 11 Pa. D. & C. 5th 558 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2010) (trial court refused to take jurisdiction of a same-sex marriage for the purposes of divorce due to the operation of Pennsylvanias marriage prohibition).
32
A. Pennsylvania couples who cannot access divorce are left without a fair and efficient structure for dividing assets following a breakup. 78. As noted above, Pennsylvanias divorce laws are intended to create
fairness, efficiency, and certainty in the process of dissolving a relationship. However, same-sex couples are prohibited from accessing divorce by operation of Pennsylvanias same-sex marriage prohibition. As a result, couples wishing to dissolve their relationships face confusion and uncertainty, and their dissolution-related litigation creates inefficiencies in Pennsylvanias court system, for reasons described below. 79. First, couples whose relationships are dissolving have no access to
any of the methods of support that Pennsylvania has established for ensuring that both parties in a dissolving relationship remain financially stable. For example, couples cannot receive: i. Alimony pendente lite: This type of support is granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce proceeding.48 ii. Alimony: This temporary type of support is granted to an exspouse in conjunction with a final divorce decree.49
48 49
23 Pa. C.S.A. 3103. Id.
33
iii. Spousal support: Spouses are obligated to financially support one another during a marriage.50 Consequently, a spouse may file for support at any time; if filed separate from a divorce action, this demand for support is called spousal support, and if filed in conjunction with a divorce, it is called alimony pendente lite.51 The obligation to support may require spouses to pay for one anothers reasonable healthcare expenses.52 80. Second, couples in a dissolving relationship have little opportunity to
fairly divide their assets. They cannot, for instance, take advantage of Pennsylvanias scheme for the equitable distribution of property. Pennsylvania domestic relations courts will divide marital property property during a divorce. The definition of marital property is very broad, encompassing, with limited exceptions, all property acquired by either party during the marriage, and the increase in value of non-marital property.53 Rather than simply splitting the property according to a rigid formula, Pennsylvania law follows a flexible equitable distribution model,
50 51 52 53
23 Pa. C.S.A. 4321. See Calibeo v. Calibeo, 663 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). 23 Pa. C.S.A. 4324. 23 Pa. C.S.A. 3501.
34
which takes into account a number of different factors, including the length of the marriage, the sources of income available to both parties, and many other considerations.54 There is no analogue under Pennsylvania law for unmarried couples who require a courts assistance in obtaining an equitable property division in case of a separation. Same-sex couples are also barred from seeking a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Pennsylvania courts will issue this type of order in comportment with federal law to divide a retirement account upon the divorce of spouses (see further discussion infra), but will not issue such an order where there is no recognition of the marriage. 81. Third, the lack of access to divorce creates enormous confusion for
couples, and actually impacts Pennsylvanias court system outside of the domestic relations context. The Domestic Relations Code not only provides substantive protections that are denied same-sex partners, it also provides a forum through the mechanism of divorce that has been designed to contend with the reality of separation in a holistic manner than encompasses both substance and procedure. Pennsylvania divorce laws are specifically designed to promote efficiency, fairness, and financial stability in the event
54
23 Pa. C.S.A. 3502.
35
of a separation. The law seeks to consolidate all disputes arising from the separation in a single court. The Pennsylvania courts design rules, forms, and policies that are intended to be clear enough to allow pro se filings. Mediation is frequently made available. Where couples wish to split amicably, the courts encourage quick and affordable filing and speedy resolutions. Divorce filing fees vary by county, but generally range from less than one hundred up to a few hundred dollars.55 Depending on the circumstances, an uncontested divorce may not even require an appearance before a judge.56 82. In contrast, because same-sex couples are prohibited from accessing
the system of divorce, their disputes are either outside the jurisdiction of
55
See, e.g., http://www.adamscounty.us/Dept/Prothonotary/Lists/Fee/AllItems.aspx (Adams County, $180.00 to file divorce complaint); http://www.co.berks.pa.us/Dept/Prothy/Documents/2013%20FEE%20BILL(7-1-13).pdf (Berks County, $215.50 to file divorce complaint); http://www.buckscounty.org/government/RowOfficers/Prothonotary/DRFeeSchedule (Bucks County, $349.00 to file divorce complaint); http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Publicly-ElectedOfficials/Prothonotary/Pages/Fee-Listing.aspx (Dauphin County, $297.00 to file divorce complaint); http://www.lycolaw.org/court/prothonotary.htm (Lycoming County, $120.00 to file divorce complaint); http://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/276 (Montgomery County, $268.00 to file divorce complaint); http://www.montourco.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/fees.pdf (Montour County, $115.00 to file divorce complaint); http://www.pottercountypa.net/prothonotary_court.php (Potter County, $72.00 to file basic divorce complaint); https://yorkcountypa.gov/courts-criminal-justice/courtcourtrelated-offices/prothonotary/fees.html (York County, $263.25 to file divorce complaint).
56
23 Pa. C.S.A. 3301(c-e).
36
Pennsylvania courts entirely, or subject to a confusing patchwork of laws that may spread their disputes out across multiple courts and even multiple jurisdictions. For example, same-sex couples with children may not be able to access the same court for resolution of both property division and custody issues. Pennsylvanias Family Courts, which exist in Pennsylvanias more populous counties, are designed to deal with the dissolution of marital relationships and related custody issues at the same time, and they have judges who specialize in or are very experienced in these issues.57 Same-sex couples, however, must use existent Family Courts for custody issues, but then are not permitted to resolve property division disputes in that same court. They may file a separate action for the limited purpose of partitioning jointly titled real property.58 Couples file those partition actions in civil courts of general jurisdiction, as opposed to Family Courts. However, proper venue in a partition action is not only not heard in the same court as custody,
57
For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that in Allegheny County: [T]he court of common pleas shall exercise jurisdiction in the following matters through the family court division: (i) Domestic Relations: Desertion or nonsupport of wives, children and indigent parents, including children born out of wedlock; proceedings, including habeas corpus, for custody of children; divorce and annulment and property matters relating thereto. Pa. Const. art. V, 17.
58
The purpose of a partition action is to allow joint owners of property, who no longer desire to own that particular property, to divest themselves of ownership for fair compensation. Partition, 23 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d 122:1. Note that a partition action, in contrast to equitable distribution in divorce, is unavailable when only one partys name is on the deed.
37
it may not even be in the same county as the custody litigation.59 Thus, a couple with children seeking to partition real property may find themselves litigating two separate matters in two different counties. 83. Even where a couple is not forced to access multiple courts to resolve
disputes arising out of a separation, the court that they are permitted to access may be forced to resolve the dispute under a set of standards that does not make sense in the context of relationship dissolution. For example, same-sex couples are often advised in Pennsylvania to draft cohabitation agreements. The purpose of these agreements is to identify ownership of property, divide financial obligations, and provide an agreed-upon resolution to property disputes that might arise in the context of a separation. However, in the event of a separation, disputes arising from interpretation of the cohabitation agreement must be heard in civil court according to the law of contract. They are essentially treated under the law like any other
59
An action for the partition of real property, including an action in which the Commonwealth is a party, may be brought in and only in a county in which all or any part of any property which is the subject matter of the action is located. Pa. R.C.P. 1552.
38
contract, even though they are much more analogous in their intent to a prenuptial agreement.60 B. Pennsylvania couples who have valid marriages frequently cannot divorce in any jurisdiction, and will consequently still be viewed as married in many jurisdictions.
84.
Pennsylvania couples who are validly married in other jurisdictions,
but who wish to divorce, frequently cannot do so in the state where they were married. This stems from the fact that many of the jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriages have a residency requirement in order to assume jurisdiction over a divorce.61 Only certain states that allow same-sex marriage allow non-resident same-sex spouses to divorce there (and usually only if the couples state of residence will not recognize the marriage in order to dissolve it).62 This is true regardless of whether the couple
60
While the damages awarded [in an action on an agreement between cohabitors] may to some extent parallel a property settlement following a divorce, the two are not the same. De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952, 955 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984).
61
States that grant marriages to same-sex couples but will not exercise jurisdiction over divorce unless at least one member of the couple resides in that state include: Iowa; Maine; New Hampshire; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Rhode Island; Washington State. The length of residence required to file for divorce varies from state to state, but is one year for many states close to Pennsylvania. See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., Family Law 7-101 (one year residency requirement in Maryland); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, 5 (one year residency requirement in Massachusetts); N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:34-10 (one year residency requirement in New Jersey).
62
States that allow non-resident same-sex couples to divorce are: California; Delaware; Hawaii; Illinois (as of June 2014); Minnesota; Vermont (only if the couple has no children and all issues in the divorce are already resolved); Washington, D.C.; and
39
originally lived in the state in which they were married. Thus, even a couple who once lived and married in Massachusetts but then moved to Pennsylvania will not be permitted to divorce - in either Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. This leaves many Pennsylvania couples with no ability to access divorce. They are, to use a recently coined phrase, wedlocked forced to remain married against their wishes.63 85. Wedlocked couples face serious risks and disadvantages. Under state
law, wedlocked couples may find that: i. Neither person will be able to enter into a new marriage (whether to a same-sex or opposite-sex partner) without running the risk of a bigamy prosecution in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages; ii. Neither person may be able to adopt a child without the consent of the spouse, even if the couple is separated;64
Canada. National Center for Lesbian Rights, Divorce for Same-sex Couples who Live in Non-Recognition States: A Guide for Attorneys, http://www.nclrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/Divorce_in_DOMA_States_Attorney_Guide.pdf (last accessed February 1, 2014).
63
See generally Mary Patricia Byrn and Morgan L. Holcomb, Wedlocked, 67 U. Miami L. Rev. 1 (2012).
64
23 Pa. C.S.A. 2711(a)(2) (consent of spouse required unless the spouse joins in the petition). Adoption agencies may choose to recognize a marriage even if the Commonwealth does not, and have refused to allow Pennsylvanians to adopt a child because they were wedlocked to a former partner.
40
iii. Wedlocked spouses may continue to accrue state law-based rights and responsibilities for the duration of the time in which they cannot divorce. For example, Pennsylvania equitably divides property in divorce based upon a number of factors, including the length of the marriage.65 Thus, a very short marriage that cannot be dissolved may at some point in the future, if the marriage is eventually recognized, lead to an unfair distribution of property. 86. Following the Windsor decision, wedlocked spouses also will
continue to be viewed as married for many federal purposes. For example: i. Following Windsor, the IRS issued a ruling that same-sex couples holding valid marriage licenses from any jurisdiction are now considered married for the purposes of filing federal income taxes.66 Thus, wedlocked couples who live apart must, until they are able to finally divorce, file federal income tax returns, whether jointly or separately, as married persons. ii. Following Windsor, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Technical Release determining that same-sex couples holding valid
65 66
23 Pa. C.S.A. 3502(1).
IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-13-17.pdf (last accessed February 2, 2014).
41
marriage licenses from any jurisdiction are now considered married for the purposes of ERISA-governed employee benefit plans.67 Thus, wedlocked couples may find, for example, that they cannot remove their spouses name as a beneficiary from an ERISA-governed retirement account.68 XIII PENNSYLVANIAS SAME-SEX COUPLES CAN REPLICATE ONLY A FRACTION OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS THAT ACCOMPANY MARRIAGE, AND EVEN THEN, ONLY AT A SIGNIFICANT COST. 87. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has observed, marriage brings
with it myriad rights and responsibilities, some of which cannot be
67
United States Department of Labor Technical Release No. 2013-4, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr13-04.html.
68
For a very helpful summation of this very complicated area of law, see generally 2 ERISA Practice and Procedure 4:44, Requirement of Joint and Survivor Annuity and Preretirement Survivor Annuity (2013). In order to remove a spouse as beneficiary from an ERISA-governed retirement plan, an individual must obtain written consent from the spouse. Id. Absent consent, the only way to remove the spouse is through a court order that memorializes a property settlement agreement. These orders, called Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, or QDROs, must satisfy strict formal requirements and must follow the resident states domestic relations law. Thus, a state that does not allow divorce and does not recognize the marriage will not issue a QDRO. See generally United States Department of Labor, Frequently Asked Questions: Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro.html (last accessed February 2, 2014).
42
replicated using any existing mechanism under law, and some of which can only be replicated at considerable expense.69 88. Couples in Pennsylvania often call attorneys, and ask how they can
replicate as many legal protections of marriage as possible. 89. When I was in practice, I recommended to callers that they should
take several legal steps, including: i. Execution of reciprocal wills; ii. Execution of reciprocal healthcare powers of attorney and living wills;
69
In Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, the Court determined that Philadelphias establishment of a domestic partner registry did not violate Pennsylvanias prohibition on same-sex marriage, asserting that: Indeed, even though the Legislation affords Life Partners certain limited rights and benefits that spouses also enjoy, those rights and benefits are but a small fraction of what marriage affords to its participants. As the City emphasizes, Life Partners who separate cannot take advantage of the domestic relations laws that govern, among other things, divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and equitable distribution Likewise, Life Partnership under the current Legislation does not somehow extend to Life Partners numerous other spousal benefits, including: (1) the rights and protections that come with holding marital property in a tenancy of the entirety (2) the marital exemption from paying any transfer tax on inheritance from a spouse (3) a guaranteed share of an intestate spouse's estate (4) the testimonial privilege between husband and wife (5) the right to file joint tax returns (6) the first right to receive workers' compensation when the spouse dies (7) employment preferences afforded to the spouses of veterans and (8) the right to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of one's deceased spouse. Devlin, supra note 28 at 1243-44 (internal citations omitted).
43
iii. Effectuating a second-parent adoption of any children born to the relationship; iv. Obtaining life insurance policies that would cover the costs of inheritance taxes; v. Entering into a private cohabitation agreement that set forth the terms under which property would be divided in the event of a breakup; and vi. Traveling to a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and marrying there, in case their marriage would ever be recognized under federal law or the law of a state where they might one day reside. 90. The costs of obtaining these protections are influenced by several
factors, including: the number of children; the couples county of residence; the complexity of the couples estate planning or cohabitation contract needs; the amount of any hourly wages lost by the couple as a result of multiple attorney visits and court dates; and the cost of traveling to a different state from the couples residence. 91. In addition, I always advised callers that the unique situation of same-
sex couples requires that the couple retain an attorney with familiarity in the area. Couples who attempt to cut corners by, for example, drafting a will
44
from a form found online, may find themselves incurring very significant legal fees when the resulting document is challenged in court. 92. Low-income couples can have some court costs waived, but qualified
pro bono assistance for these services is very difficult to find. In all likelihood, a couple will have to spend several hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on their situation and the availability of qualified legal counsel, to replicate even a part of the legal rights and protections that are automatic for couples whose marriages are recognized by the Commonwealth. 93. IX In contrast, a marriage license in Pennsylvania costs less than $100.70 PENNSYLVANIAS MARRIAGE EXCLUSION CREATES LEGAL CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY FOR COUPLES IN THE COMMONWEALTH. With regard to federal law, the rapid changes in law in the wake of the
94.
Windsor decision offer some benefits to married same-sex couples who live in Pennsylvania, but also create a confusing and highly fluid legal landscape
70
See e.g. http://www.alleghenycounty.us/wo/plan.aspx (last accessed February 7, 2014) (marriage license costs $80 in Allegheny County); http://www.northamptoncounty.org/northampton/lib/northampton/depts/courtservices/wil ls_orphans/marriagepre.pdf (last accessed February 7, 2014) (marriage license costs $50 in Northampton County); http://www.tiogacountypa.us/Departments/Register_Recorder/Pages/ObtainingyourMarri ageLicense.aspx (last accessed February 7, 2014) (marriage license costs $35 in Tioga County).
45
that is challenging even for experts to stay abreast of, and practically impossible for average same-sex couples to understand. There are over 1000 federal laws that are impacted by marital status. However, under the current system, there is no uniform scheme under federal law for determining when a marriage is legally recognized for federal purposes. For some federal programs, a marriage is valid if it is recognized in the place of celebration; for other federal programs, the validity of a marriage is determined by the laws of the state whether the person resides. For some federal laws these distinctions are determined by statute, for some by formal administrative rulemaking, and for others by internal administrative directive. 95. Pennsylvania couples with marriages from other states will, under the
current regime, therefore find themselves married for some federal purposes, unmarried for other federal purposes, and unmarried for the purposes of their state of residence. There is no easy way for these couples to determine whether they are married or unmarried for a particular purpose, and any information they are able to locate may be out-of-date by the time they rely upon it. Even if a couple possesses the means to seek out the advice of counsel, it is my experience that there are a very few lawyers who fully grasp the entirety of the ramifications of a couple being married for some
46
federal purposes, married for no state purposes in their state of residence, but married for all purposes in states that recognize same-sex marriage. 96. Until Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion is eliminated, the unclear
status of Pennsylvania same-sex couples who have valid marriages from other jurisdictions creates enormous legal uncertainty and complexity that will cause some to lose out on benefits and could lead to errors and potential legal liability for others. This uncertainty permeates the lives of same-sex couples attempting to complete even the most mundane, everyday tasks. For example: i. In Pennsylvania, spouses must now file personal income taxes as Married for federal purposes, and Single for state purposes. In Pennsylvania, married couples file personal income tax returns using a different categorization scheme than unmarried couples.71 Married opposite-sex couples are permitted to file as either Married, Filing Jointly, or Married, Filing Separately. Unmarried people may only file as Single.72 By prohibiting the recognition of
71 72
72 Pa. C.S.A 7331, 61 Pa. Code 117.2.
See e.g. Form PA-40 2013: Pennsylvania Income Tax Return, available at http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/personal_income_tax/14692 (last accessed January 26, 2014) (form permits filing for a living person only under the following categories: Single; Married Filing Jointly; Married, Filing Separately).
47
same-sex relationships as marriages, Pennsylvania law operates to prevent same-sex partners from filing personal income tax returns under either the Married, Filing Jointly or the Married, Filing Separately category. However, following the Windsor decision, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17, which determined that the marriages of same-sex spouses would be recognized for federal income tax purposes, so long as those marriages were performed in a state that authorizes the performance of such marriages.73 Although this ruling harmonizes state and Federal income taxation for couples residing in states where their same-sex marriages are recognized, the converse is true in states like Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, a same-sex couple validly married in another state now must file federal personal income taxes as married spouses and Commonwealth personal income taxes under the Single category. Couples may be incredibly confused by this new reality, and may now find it impossible to file their taxes without assistance. However, it is unclear if all tax preparers in the
73
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-13-17.pdf (last accessed January 26, 2014).
48
Commonwealth will even be able to determine how to prepare such returns without themselves committing costly errors. ii. Married same-sex couples living in Pennsylvania may find themselves utterly confounded by any official form that asks them to designate their marital status. The couple must essentially attempt to guess who the entity is who is asking the question and what the purpose of the question is before even checking a simple box. For example, when filling out patient information at a doctors office, a patient often must fill out several forms that may ask for the patients marital status. Each of these forms may correspond to different entities and governing laws. Couples may be afraid to answer married because they know that in Pennsylvania, the law does not recognize the marriage. But for some purposes, they may lose benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled by answering that they are unmarried. For these couples, the simple act of form-filling may become Kafkaesqe: any answer they give may be wrong. 97. This uncertainty and confusion about federal rules and benefits only
adds to the complex legal reality that already dominates the lives of samesex couples. The legal issues identified in this report, and the hundreds of
49
other legal distinctions that turn on marriage under Pennsylvania law, present same-sex couples with legal and financial challenges that can only be understood with a very high level of education and sophistication. Most couples do not have that level of education and sophistication indeed, in my experience, most lawyers do not have the education and sophistication needed to properly advise same sex couples about their legal rights. 98. The vast majority of same-sex couples, like the vast majority of
opposite-sex couples, do not possess the legal and financial knowledge and sophistication, much less the financial means, to protect themselves and their families from the consequences of Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion. These couples are, in almost every area of their lives, at a disadvantage that few can overcome, solely because of Pennsylvanias marriage exclusion.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of February, 2014.
_____________________________ Leonore F. Carpenter
50
LEONORE F. CARPENTER
Temple University Beasley School of Law 1719 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-4977 lee.carpenter@temple.edu
EDUCATION
Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA. Juris Doctor, May 2000. Awards & Achievements: Beth Cross Graduation Award, May 2000. Deans List: Fall 1997, Fall 1998, Spring 1999, Fall 1999, Spring 2000. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ. Bachelor of Arts, American Studies, May 1995. Editor-in-Chief, The Medium Student Newspaper, 1993 1994.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA. Assistant Professor. July 2009 Present. Visiting Assistant Professor. July 2008 June 2009. Courses: Introduction to Public Interest Law; Legal Research & Writing; Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and the Law. Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA. Adjunct Clinical Instructor. September 2004 June 2008. Created and taught Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law, a clinical course that instructs law students in the effective representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) clients through hands-on training at Equality Advocates Pennsylvania.
SCHOLARSHIP
Getting Queer Priorities Straight: How Direct Legal Services Can Democratize Issue Prioritization in the LGBT Rights Movement, 17 U. PENN. J. LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE ___ (forthcoming 2013). Were Not Running a Charity Here: Rethinking Public Interest Lawyers Relationships with BottomLine-Driven Pro Bono Programs, 29 BUFF. PUB. INT. L. J. 37 (2011).
AWARDS
National LGBT Bar Association, 40 Best LGBT Lawyers Under the Age of 40. September 2012.
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 115 of 408 LEONORE F. CARPENTER PAGE 2 OF 4
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Legal Director. September 2005 June 2008. Directed Equality Advocates legal department. Coordinated statewide LGBT-rights litigation strategy. Supervised two attorneys, one intake manager and more than twelve law students each year. Oversaw telephone intake hotline. Maintained own caseload. Engaged in extensive public speaking on topics related to the civil rights of the LGBT community. Cultivated and maintained relationships with pro bono attorneys. Planned strategically for new fellowship opportunities, recruited potential fellows, and developed proposals. Staff Attorney. September 2003 August 2005. Represented clients in administrative proceedings, trial and appellate litigation in a wide variety of legal issues, including: relationship recognition; police misconduct; family law; estate planning; and employment matters. Continued to direct Pennsylvania Anti-Violence Project. Equal Justice Works Fellow. September 2001 August 2003. Awarded two-year Equal Justice Works fellowship to launch and direct the Pennsylvania Anti-Violence Project. Advocated for LGBT victims of domestic violence and hate crimes, and youth victims of school-based harassment. Represented clients, created and presented public education programs, and supervised student interns performing client intake and legal research. New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, Trenton, NJ. Law Clerk to the Honorable Harold B. Wells, III, J.A.D. September 2000 August 2001.
BAR ADMISSIONS
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2007. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2003. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2001.
LAW SCHOOL SERVICE

Member, Strategic Planning Committee, November 2012 Present. LRW Coordinator, June 2012 June 2013. Faculty Advisor, Temple Law Student Disciplinary Advocacy Service, August 2011 Present. Chair, Faculty Public Interest Committee, August 2011 August 2013. Member, Ad-Hoc Committee on Gender Identity, 2010 2011. Co-Chair, Faculty Public Interest Committee, August 2010 August 2011, August 2013 Present. Faculty Advisor, OUTLAW Law Students Group, 2009 Present. Member, Curriculum Committee, 2009-2010. Member, Graduation Prizes Committee, 2009 -2010. Member, Upper Level Curriculum Initiative Committee, 2009-2010. Member, Judicial Clerkship Clinical Committee, 2011, 2013.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Member, The Legal Writing Institute, 2010 Present. Board of Directors, The Mazzoni Center, 2010 Present. Member, Legal Advisory Board, The Mazzoni Center, 2009 Present. Member, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Committee, ABA, 2008 Present. Member, LGBT Committee, Interbranch Commission for Racial, Gender and Ethnic Fairness, 2007 Present. Member, National Center for Lesbian Rights National Family Law Advisory Council, 2005 Present. Board of Directors, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2003 2005. Nominating Committee Chair, City of Philadelphia Police Department LGBT Liaison Committee, 2003 2005. Co-Chair, Philadelphia Bar Association Committee on the Legal Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men, 2002 2004.
PRESENTATIONS & CONFERENCES (SELECTED)

Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Course Faculty, Frontiers in LGBT Family Law: Marriage and Beyond. October 10, 2013. National LGBT Bar Association, San Francisco, CA. Facilitator, Teaching Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and the Law: A Roundtable Discussion, Lavender Law Conference. August 2013. Moderator, Queering Legal Services: Making Equality Gains Accessible to All Panel, Lavender Law Conference. August 2013. The Philadelphia Trans-Health Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Faculty, Client vs. Movement How Do We Choose? June 14, 2013. The Mazzoni Center, Philadelphia, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Faculty, Rights and Challenges for LGBT Clients. February 27, 2013. Legal Writing Institute / New York Law School, New York, NY. LWI One-Day Workshop Presenter, Theres Nothing Soft About Professional Development, Cultural Competency, Ethics and Social Justice. December 7, 2012. Philadelphia Bar Association, Philadelphia, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Moderator, Marriage (In)Equality: Update on the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples and the Future of the Defense of Marriage Act. November 29, 2012. Legal Writing Institute / Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC. Capital Area Legal Writing Conference Presenter, Diversity in the LRW Classroom. March 10, 2012.
Legal Writing Institute / Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY. Workshop Presenter, LWI One-Day Workshops. December 2, 2011. National LGBT Bar Association, Los Angeles, CA. Panelist, Junior Scholars Panel, Lavender Law Conference. September 2011. Moderator, Intimate Partner Violence Panel, Lavender Law Conference. September 2011. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Faculty Respondent, GASWorks (Gender and Sexuality Works-in-Progress) Seminar Series. December 3, 2010. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Faculty Respondent, Future/NO Future: Graduate Student Conference, Gender and Sexuality Studies. September 16-17, 2010. Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA. Forum Moderator, Queering Borders: Issues in LGBT Immigration. November 19, 2009. Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Faculty, The New Jersey Civil Union Law. June 12, 2007. National Sexual Assault Law Institute, Boston, MA. Course Material Author and Presenter, The Fifth National Sexual Assault Law Institute - Why Race, Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation Matter: Representing Sexual Assault Victims From Underserved Communities. June 2, 2006. Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA. Symposium Presenter, Law and Adolescence: The Legal Status, Rights, and Responsibilities of Adolescents in the Child Welfare, Juvenile, and Criminal Justice Systems. March 18, 2006. Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Course Material Author and Faculty, Domestic Violence: Protection from Abuse. March 16, 2006. Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE. Symposium Presenter, Battered Again? Revictimizing Victims of Domestic Violence. April 1, 2005. Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA. Continuing Legal Education Seminar Course Material Author and Faculty, Understanding and Representing Transgender Clients. July 8, 2004 and December 12, 2004. National Gay & Lesbian Law Association, Philadelphia, PA. Panelist, Host Committee Member, Lavender Law Conference. October 2002.
EXHIBIT PX-03
WHITEWOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF, et al., Defendants. Civil Action
No. 13-1861-JEJ
EXPERT REPORT OF GEORGE CHAUNCEY, PH.D. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. I am the Samuel Knight Professor of History and American Studies and past Chair of the Department of History at Yale University, where I have taught since 2006. This report relates to my opinions as an expert in the history of the United States in the twentieth century and gender, homosexuality, sexuality, and civil rights in the United States, with a particular focus on the history of discrimination experienced by lesbians and gay men in the United States. I have actual knowledge of the matters stated in this report, and could and would so testify if called as a witness. 2. My background, experience, and publications are summarized in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit A to this report. In the past four years, I have testified as an experteither at trial or through declarationor been deposed as an expert in U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013); Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012); Commonwealth of Mass. v. U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012); Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Haw. 2012); Sevcik v. Sandoval, No. 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012); Cooper-Harris v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125030 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013); Obergefell v. Kasich, Case No. Case No. 1:13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio); Donaldson v. Montana, No. 10-702 (Mont. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct.); Darby v. Orr, Lazaro v. Orr, Nos. 12 CH 19718 & 19719 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty.); and DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-cv-10285 (E.D. Mich. 2012)all of which involved testimony on topics similar to those discussed below. 3. From 1991 to 2006, I was a Professor of History at the University of Chicago. I am the author of Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 (New York: Basic Books, 1994), which won the Organization of American 1
Historians Merle Curti Award for the best book in social history and Frederick Jackson Turner Award for the best first book in any field of history, the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in History, and Lambda Literary Award. I am also the author of Why Marriage? The History Shaping Todays Debate over Gay Equality (New York: Basic Books, 2004); coeditor of three books and special journal issues, including Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past (NAL, 1989); and the author of numerous articles, which are listed in my curriculum vitae, attached to this report as Exhibit A (including all publications authored in the previous 10 years). 4. In preparing this report, I reviewed the Amended Complaint in this case. I base my opinions on my own research, experience and publications, the work of other historians and scholars, and on other sources that I have considered, which are listed in the attached bibliography (Exhibit B). The materials I have relied upon in preparing this report are the same types of materials that experts in my field regularly rely upon when forming opinions on the subject. 5. I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs in this litigation. I am being compensated at a rate of $400 per hour for preparation of reports or declarations; $450 per hour for time spent preparing for and giving deposition or trial testimony; and $4,500 per day spent preparing for or attending trial. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 6. It is my professional opinion that the historical record, which is outlined below, demonstrates that gay and lesbian people have been subject to widespread and significant discrimination and hostility in the United States. 7. Through much of the twentieth century, in particular, gay men and lesbians suffered under the weight of medical theories that treated their desires as a disorder; penal laws that condemned their consensual adult sexual behavior as a crime; police practices that suppressed their ability to associate and socialize publicly; censorship codes that prohibited their depiction on the stage, in the movies, and on television; and federal policies and state regulations that discriminated against them on the basis of their homosexual status. These state policies and ideological messages worked together to create and reinforce the belief that gay and lesbian persons comprised an inferior class to be shunned by other Americans. 8. Despite social and legal progress in the past thirty years towards greater acceptance of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people continue to live with the legacy of the antigay measures enacted in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and the attitudes that motivated those measures. That legacy is evident both in laws that remain on the books and in the many legal protections that have not been enacted. 9. Among the many products of the legacy of discrimination in the twentieth century, the most conspicuous today include Congress repeated failure to enact federal legislation protecting gay and lesbian people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations; the numerous state statutes and constitutional amendments that brand 2
gay men and lesbians as second-class citizens by denying them the right to marry the person they love; and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which until several months ago prohibited the federal government from recognizing such a marriage when it did occur. The legacy of discrimination is also evident in the demeaning stereotypes and inflammatory rhetoric used by anti-gay organizations and public officials as they campaign to enact further measures meant to erode gay peoples civil rights and diminish their status as full citizens of the United States campaigns that are, to this day, very often successful. 10. Today, the limited civil rights enjoyed by gay and lesbian Americans vary substantially from region to region and are still subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion. Like other minority groups, gay men and lesbians often must rely on judicial decisions to secure equal rights. HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES I. INTRODUCTION
11. While there is ample evidence that same-sex attraction, love, and intimacy have persisted across the ages, most historians now agree that the concept of the homosexual and the heterosexual as distinct categories of people emerged only in the late nineteenth century. This concept had profound effects on the regulation of homosexuality. Early American legislators, drawing on their understanding of ancient Judeo-Christian prohibitions against sodomy and unnatural acts, penalized a wide range of non-procreative behavior, including many forms of what would now be called homosexual conduct. While these laws prohibited conduct, it was in the twentieth century that governments began to classify and discriminate against certain of their own citizens on the basis of their status or identity as homosexuals. 12. Official, government-sanctioned hostility and discrimination has had a profound and enduring negative impact on lesbians and gay men in American society. In the 1920s, the State of New York prohibited theaters from staging plays with lesbian or gay characters. Beginning in the 1930s and 1940s, many states prohibited gay people from being served in bars and restaurants. In the 1950s, the federal government banned the employment of homosexuals and insisted that its private contractors ferret out and dismiss their gay employees. It also prohibited gay foreigners from entering the country or securing citizenship. Until the 1960s, all states penalized sexual intimacy between men. Thirteen states continued to classify sodomy as a felony until the Supreme Court invalidated such laws in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Throughout the twentieth century, many municipalities launched police campaigns to suppress gay meeting places, and sought to purge gay civil servants from government employment. 13. Private hostility and discrimination, often encouraged by government officials, has had a similarly profound and enduring negative effect on lesbians and gay men in American society. Until the 1970s, leading physicians and medical researchers claimed that homosexuality was a pathological condition or disease. In the 1930s, the Hollywood studios enacted a censorship code that for nearly thirty years prohibited the discussion of gay issues or the appearance of gay or lesbian characters in the eras most powerful communications medium. In the 1940s and 1950s, municipal police officials, state governmental leaders, local newspapers, 3
and national magazines justified anti-gay discrimination and the suppression of gay meeting places by fostering frightening stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters. These stereotypes have had enduring consequences, and continue to inspire public fears and hostility, especially concerning gay teachers and parents. In the 1980s, the early press coverage of AIDS reinforced the view that homosexuals were diseased and threatened other Americans. In the 1990s, many clergy condemned (and still condemn) homosexuality as sinful. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, called for a boycott of all Disney products because Disney offered domestic partnership benefits to its employees and Disneyland organized gay theme nights. Also, some anti-gay groups threatened to organize boycotts against the sponsors of network television shows which included gay characters. 14. Historically, anti-gay measures often were enacted or strengthened in response to periods of relative growth in the visibility or tolerance of gay people. For example, the effervescence and visibility of gay life in the 1920s contributed to the backlash lesbians and gay men endured during the Great Depression. The increased visibility of lesbians and gay men during the Second World War helped precipitate a second wave of hostility in the late 1940s and 1950s. The dramatically increased visibility of lesbians and gay men in the 1970s and 1980s, and their success in persuading some state and local governments to include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination laws, resulted in a wave of referenda and initiatives between 1977 and the early 1990s that overturned such laws and/or prohibited the enactment of others. 15. In recent decades, and especially in the last twenty years, many (though not all) of these discriminatory measures were repealed, but considerable discrimination and animosity persisted. Given the long history of campaigns demonizing homosexuals as child molesters, it is unsurprising that in 1977the year Anita Bryant launched her Save Our Children campaign two-thirds of Americans told pollsters they objected to lesbians or gay men being hired as elementary school teachers. By 1992, after fifteen years of extensive public discussion of this and other gay issues, opinion had shifted, but half of those parents polled still rejected the idea of their child having a gay elementary school teacher. By 2002, about forty percent of Americans still were unwilling to have elementary schools employ gay teachers, and one-third of them found gay high school teachers unacceptable. 16. When marriage emerged as the new flashpoint in debates over civil rights for gay men and lesbians two decades ago, the debate was shaped by the legacy of anti-gay policies and attitudes. Many Americans initially responded to the idea that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry with the same misgivings and even hostility with which they once greeted the idea of gay teachers or gay characters on television sitcoms. Opponents of marriage equality mobilized some of the most enduring anti-gay stereotypes to heighten public apprehension. For instance, during the 2008 campaign over Proposition 8the California ballot initiative that revoked the marriage rights of gay men and lesbians that the California Supreme Court had recognized under the state constitutionseveral television commercials aired by the supporters of Proposition 8 warned that marriage equality might encourage children to become homosexuals themselves. A subsequent campaign to repeal marriage equality in Maine used the same tactics, including recycling commercials and scripts from the Proposition 8 campaign because they had been so effective in California. The approval of Proposition 8 in California, Question 1 in Maine, and similar laws and constitutional amendments in a total of forty-one states indicate the enduring influence of anti-gay hostility and the persistence of ideas about the inequality of gay 4
people and their relationships. The civil rights enjoyed by gay and lesbian people throughout the United States continue to be subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion in an ever-changing social, political, and cultural landscape. 17. At several critical junctures, a handful of state and federal courts have been the only authorities willing to defend the rights of gay people against the antipathy of the majority. In the 1950s and 1960s, at a time when overwhelming public sentiment supported the criminalization of gay bars and other meeting places, state courts in California and New York ruled that gay people had the right to assemble. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Post Office could not ban a gay political magazine from the mails. In the 1990s, when voters in cities and states across the country were voting to ban states and local municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination protections for gay people, the Supreme Court, in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew from gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from discrimination. Sometimes quickly and sometimes more slowly, these decisions played a critical role in shifts in public opinion. II. THE ROOTS OF ANTI-GAY DISCRIMINATION
18. The first American laws against homosexual conduct were rooted in the earliest English settlers understanding of the religious and secular traditions that prohibited sodomy, and they reflected the ambiguity of those traditions. Although sodomy included some forms of what today would be called homosexual conduct, medieval theologians did not use sodomy to refer systematically and exclusively to such conduct; for example, they rarely understood sodomy to include oral sex or sex between women. 19. The English Reformation Parliament of 1533 turned the religious injunction against sodomy into the secular crime of buggery when it made the detestable and abominable vice of buggery committed with mankind or beast punishable by death. The English courts interpreted this to apply to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal and anal intercourse between a man and woman or between two men. 20. Colonial American statutes drew on these religious and secular traditions and shared their imprecision in the definition of the offense. Variously defining the crime as (the religious) sodomy or (the secular) buggery, they generally proscribed anal sex between men and men, men and women, and humans and animals, but their details and their rationales varied. The southern colonies generally adopted the English law against buggery, while the Puritan New England colonies usually drew on religious traditions to penalize many forms of carnall knowledge, including adultery, fornication, sex with prepubescent girls, and men lying with men. Puritan clergy in the New England colonies were especially vigorous in their denunciation of sodomitical sins as contrary to Gods will. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, sodomy was prohibited in 1641 by a statute taken directly from Leviticus: If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death. Although several men were executed for sodomy, the colonies rarely prosecuted men for this offense, for reasons that still are not entirely clear to historians.
III.
MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY: 1890-1940
21. Prosecutions for sodomy and related offenses increased dramatically in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a result of the emergence of the idea of the homosexual as a distinct category of person, the expansion of laws penalizing homosexual conduct, and the growing influence of religiously-inspired moral reform societies that insisted on criminal prosecutions. In 1914, for example, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the states statute criminalizing infamous crimes against nature encompassed oral as well as anal intercourse, each being an abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians. In re Benites, 37 Nev. 145, 149 (1914). 22. These types of prosecutions continued to penalize people on the basis of their homosexual conduct rather than their identity as homosexuals. Current historical research suggests that the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person developed as recently as the late nineteenth century. The word homosexual appeared for the first time in a German pamphlet in 1868, and was introduced to the American lexicon only in 1892. Between the 1920s and 1950s, the government, drawing on long traditions of hostility to same-sex conduct and responding both to new conceptions of the homosexual as an individual and to the growing visibility of those individuals, began to classify and discriminate against certain of its citizens on the basis of their status or identity as homosexuals. This discrimination reached remarkable, and still largely unrecognized, proportions. 23. The dramatic growth of American cities in the late nineteenth century permitted lesbians and gay men to develop a more complex and extensive collective life than was possible in small towns and rural areas. While everyone was likely to know everyone elses business in small towns, the size, complexity, and relative anonymity of cities made it easier for gay people (and other nonconformists) to forge a collective life with people like themselves, away from the eyes of hostile outsiders. The early history of the migration of gay people to the relative freedom of the cities is little understood, but it seems to have increased in the early twentieth century, at about the same time as growing numbers of African Americans fled the small towns of the Jim Crow South for the relative freedom of northern cities. Like African Americans, gay people, both black and white, found that the relative freedom of city life was tempered by continuing hostility and discrimination. 24. The emergence of gay and lesbian communities described in this report took place in varying degrees in every American city studied by historians. Because the field of lesbian and gay history remains relatively young in 2014 and has been hampered by the legacy of censorship described below, historians still know most about the history of such communities in major metropolitan centers such as New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and they will therefore loom large in the account of the history that follows. However, recent studies of the gay history of smaller cities and communities, ranging from Buffalo, New York, and Portland, Oregon, to Jackson, Mississippi, and its surrounding rural areas, both confirm the broad outlines of the history described here and reveal regional variations in that history. Important recent historical studies of the development of federal and military policies concerning homosexuality and gay citizens have documented discriminatory laws and policies that had nationwide effects. 6
25. New York City provides one of the best documented examples of the emergence of a distinctive gay world in the early twentieth century. By the 1910s, New Yorks gay world included gay residential and commercial enclaves in several immigrant, African American, and bohemian neighborhoods; widely publicized dances and other social events; and a host of commercial establishments where gay people gathered, ranging from saloons, speakeasies, and bars to cheap cafeterias and elegant restaurants. In the 1920s and early 1930s, gay writers and performers produced a flurry of gay literature and theater. Some gay people were involved in long-term relationships they called marriages. Most remained very careful to conceal their homosexuality from non-gay associates, though, for fear of losing their jobs, homes, and respect. 26. Many Americans responded to the growing visibility of gay life with fascination and sympathy, regarding it as simply one more sign of the growing complexity and freedom from tradition of a burgeoning metropolitan culture. Popular fascination with gay culture reached a crescendo during the Prohibition Era (or Jazz Age), when lesbians ran some of the most popular tearooms and cafes in bohemian neighborhoods such as New Yorks Greenwich Village and Chicagos Towertown. That said, the poor, immigrant, African American, and bohemian neighborhoods where gay life became most visible were regarded as the underside of city life by respectable society. A. Hostile Religious and Medical Views Prompted the Escalation of Anti-Gay Policing in the Early Twentieth Century
27. Other Americans regarded the growing visibility of lesbian and gay life with dread. Hostility to homosexuals sometimes was motivated by an underlying uneasiness about the dramatic changes underway in gender roles at the turn of the last century. In this eraindeed until 1973homosexuality was classified as a disease, defect, or disorder. Conservative physicians initially argued that the homosexual (or sexual invert) was characterized as much by his or her violation of conventional gender roles as by specifically sexual interests. At a time when many doctors argued that women should be barred from most jobs because employment would interfere with their ability to bear children, numerous doctors identified suffragists, women entering the professions and other women challenging the limits placed on their sex, as victims of a medical disorder. Thus, doctors explained that the female possessed of masculine ideas of independence was a degenerate and that a decided taste and tolerance for cigars, * * * [the] dislike and incapacity for needlework * * * and some capacity for athletics were all signs of female sexual inversion. Similarly, another doctor thought it significant that a male pervert never smoked and never married; [and] was entirely averse to outdoor games. 28. Such views about gender roles lost their credibility once public opinion largely had come to accept significant changes in womens roles in the workplace and political sphere, but doctors continued for several more decades to identify homosexuality per se as a disease, mental defect, disorder, or degeneration. For generations, such hostile medical pronouncements provided a powerful source of legitimacy to anti-gay sentiment, just as medical science previously had legitimized widely held (and subsequently discarded) beliefs about male superiority and white racial superiority. The medical professions classification of homosexuality as a defect or disorder also helped spur and legitimate anti-gay law enforcement activity throughout the country. 7
29. Religiously-inspired hostility to homosexuality also inspired an escalation in antigay policing. In the late nineteenth century, native-born Protestants organized numerous antivice societies to suppress what they regarded as the sexual immorality and social disorder of the nations burgeoning Catholic and Jewish immigrant neighborhoods. Although these organizations focused on female prostitution and what they regarded as the weakening of moral strictures governing relations between men and women, they also opposed the growing visibility of homosexuality, which they regarded as a particularly egregious sign of the loosening of social controls on sexual expression under urban conditions. They encouraged the police to step up harassment of gay life as one more part of their campaigns to shut down dance halls and movie theaters, prohibit the consumption of alcohol and the use of contraceptives, dissuade restaurants from serving an interracial mix of customers, and otherwise impose their vision of the proper social order and sexual morality. In New York City in the 1910s and 1920s, for instance, the Society for the Suppression of Vice (also known as the Comstock Society) worked closely with the police to arrest several hundred men for homosexual conduct. In Massachusetts, the Watch and Ward Society, established as the New England Society for the Suppression of Vice, conducted surveillance on virtually all the popular gay bars and gathering places of the time. In Chicago, the 1910 Vice Commission investigated the citys homosexual resorts. 30. As a result of the pressure from Protestant moral reform organizations, municipal police forces began using misdemeanor charges, such as disorderly conduct, vagrancy, lewdness, loitering, and so forth to harass homosexuals. These state misdemeanor or municipal offense laws, which carried fewer procedural protections than felony sodomy charges, allowed further harassment of individuals engaged in same-sex intimacy. In some cases, state officials tailored these laws to strengthen the legal regulation of homosexuals. For example, in 1923, the New York State legislature specified for the first time that a mans frequent[ing] or loiter[ing] about any public place soliciting men for the purpose of committing a crime against nature or other lewdness was a form of disorderly conduct. Many more men were arrested and prosecuted under this misdemeanor charge than for sodomy. Between 1923 and 1966, when Mayor John Lindsay ordered the police to stop using entrapment to secure arrests of gay men, there were more than 50,000 arrests on this charge in New York City alone. 31. The social marginalization of gay men and lesbians gave both the police and the public even broader informal authority to harass them. The threat of violence and verbal harassment deterred many gay people from doing anything that might reveal their homosexuality in public. Gay people knew that anyone discovered to be homosexual risked the loss of livelihood and social respect, so most gay people were careful to lead a double life, hiding their sexual orientation from their heterosexual employers and other associates. B. Censorship
32. The growing visibility of lesbian and gay life in the early twentieth century precipitated censorship campaigns designed to curtail gay peoples freedom of speech and the freedom of all Americans to discuss gay issues. 33. The earliest gay activists fell victim to such campaigns. In 1924, when the police learned of the countrys earliest known gay political group, the Society for Human Rights, which had been established by a postal worker in Chicago, they raided his home and seized his groups 8
files. After the raid, the group ceased publication of its short-lived magazine, Friendship and Freedom. In the 1910s and 1920s, a handful of plays included lesbian and gay characters or addressed gay themes. But in 1927, after The Captive, a serious drama exploring lesbianism, opened on Broadway to critical acclaim, New York State passed a padlock law that threatened to shut down for a year any theater that staged a play with lesbian or gay characters. Given Broadways national importance as a staging ground for new plays, this law effectively censored American theater for a generation. 34. Theater censorship occurred in other cities in addition to New York. In the early twentieth century, Boston had a particularly strict culture of moral purity censorship, and the phrase Banned in Boston was familiar to people throughout the country. In 1935, for instance, Boston Mayor Frederick W. Mansfield banned Lillian Hellmans The Childrens Hour, a play with lesbian themes. Mansfield explained his decision to the press by asserting that the play showed moral perversion, the unnatural appetite of two women for each other. 35. Such censorship had even wider-reaching effects when it spread to the movies. A censorship movement led by religious leaders threatened the Hollywood studios with mass boycotts and restrictive federal legislation if they did not begin censoring their films. Seeking to avoid federal legislation, the studios established a production code (popularly known as the Hays Code) that from 1934 on prohibited the inclusion of gay or lesbian characters, discussion of homosexual issues, or even the inference of sex perversion in Hollywood films. This censorship code remained in effect for some thirty years and effectively prohibited discussion of homosexuality in a powerful communications medium. This censorship stymied and delayed democratic debate about homosexuality for more than a generation. C. The Great Depression and the Curtailment of Gay Peoples Freedom of Association
36. In the early years of the Great Depression, restrictions on gay life intensified. By depriving millions of men of their role as breadwinners, the Depression transformed alreadyexisting anxiety over gender roles into a crisis in gender and family relations. Federal, state, and local governments responded to this perceived crisis with policies that directly affected women and gay people. New Deal public works projects, for instance, which offered jobs only to male heads of households, were designed in part to restore mens status in their families and larger society, even when this meant limiting womens economic opportunities. 37. The apparent fragility of the family and gender arrangements made the visibility of gay life seem more threatening to many people, especially given the long-standing representation of gay men and lesbians as gender deviants. After a generation in which gay life had been relatively visible and integrated into urban public life, restrictions on gay life increased. Gay people were forced into hiding by new laws that pushed gay people out of restaurants and bars, as well as off the stage and silver screen. 38. New regulations curtailed gay peoples freedom of association. In New York State, for instance, the State Liquor Authority, established after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, issued regulations prohibiting bars, restaurants, cabarets, and other establishments with liquor licenses from employing or serving homosexuals or even allowing them to congregate on their 9
premises. The Authoritys rationale was that the mere presence of homosexuals made an establishment disorderly, and when the courts rejected that argument, the Authority began using evidence of unconventional gender behavior or homosexual solicitation gathered by plainclothes investigators to provide proof of a bars disorderly character. Hundreds of bars were closed for this reason in the next thirty years in New York City alone. Similar regulations were introduced around the country in subsequent years. IV. MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY: WORLD WAR II
39. Changes in the policies of the Armed Forces of the United States during the Second World War both reflected and expanded the governments growing campaign of classifying and discriminating against gay citizens. The military made sodomy a criminal offense until 2013, even after the repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. But the Second World War marked the first time the military moved beyond criminalizing homosexual conduct to develop policies that systematically endeavored to exclude personnel on the basis of their identity as homosexuals. All of the branches of the armed forces put in place screening mechanisms designed to ferret out homosexuals during the induction process. Thousands of men and women were kept from serving their country, and often faced public opprobrium as a result. Notwithstanding the new prohibition, many gay men and lesbians served in the armed forces in the Second World War, but they had to be careful to whom they disclosed their sexual orientation. 40. Across the country, notwithstanding legal restrictions, the number of lesbian and gay bars and other meeting places increased during the war years. Military authorities responded to the growth in the number of gay meeting places by collaborating with civil authorities to close them or at least keep servicemen from visiting them. The Army and the Navy created a joint Disciplinary Control Board that worked together with state liquor control agents and municipal police forces to identify and police bars and night clubs, including almost one hundred in San Francisco alone, with the intent of harassing and suspending the licenses of those that served a gay clientele. Military and civilian police also cooperated in anti-vice raids against gay bars and other meeting places. Servicemen who were caught in these raids risked being discharged, and several thousand patriotic Americans who honorably served to defend their country were not honorably discharged solely because of their gay or lesbian identity. 41. Following the war, the Veterans Administration denied GI Bill benefits to soldiers who had received undesirable discharges. Eventually, most other groups of soldiers with such discharges had their benefits restored, but the Veterans Administration steadfastly refused to restore them to homosexuals. This meant that gay veterans who were members of the Greatest Generation and who had risked their lives for their country before being discharged were denied the educational, housing, and readjustment allowances provided to millions of their peers. V. MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY: POST-WWII PERIOD A. Government Policies in the McCarthy Era
42. Even the stepped-up policing of gay life in the 1930s and 1940s did not equal the scale of discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians in the generation following the Second 10
World War. The persecution of gay men and lesbians dramatically increased at every level of government after the war. 43. In 1950, following Senator Joseph McCarthys denunciation of the employment of gay persons in the State Department, the Senate conducted a special investigation into the employment of homosexuals and other sex perverts in government. The Senate committee recommended excluding gay men and lesbians from all government service, civilian as well as military. To support this recommendation, the committee argued that homosexual acts violated the law, and it gave its imprimatur to the prejudice that those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons and that homosexuals constitute security risks. 44. The committee also portrayed homosexuals as predators: [T]he presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence on his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. . . . One homosexual can pollute a Government office. 45. The Senate investigation and report were only one part of a massive anti-gay campaign launched by the federal government after the war. The Senate committee reported that between January 1, 1947, and August 1, 1950, approximately 1,700 applicants for Federal positions were denied employment because they had a record of homosexuality or other sex perversion. In 1953, President Eisenhower issued an executive order requiring the discharge of homosexual employees from federal employment, civilian or military. Thousands of men and women were discharged or forced to resign from civilian and military positions because they were suspected of being gay or lesbian. At the height of the McCarthy era, the U.S. State Department discharged more homosexuals than communists. The governments purge of its gay employees prompted the founding of some of the earliest gay rights organizations. Frank Kameny, for one, founded the first gay rights group in Washington, D.C. after he was dismissed from his job as a government astronomer for being homosexual in 1957. 46. President Eisenhowers executive order prohibiting federal employment for homosexuals also required defense contractors and other private corporations with federal contracts to ferret out and discharge their homosexual employees. Many other private employers without federal contracts adopted the federal governments policy by refusing to hire gay people. Furthermore, the FBI initiated a widespread system of surveillance to enforce the executive order. As the historian John DEmilio has noted, The FBI sought out friendly vice squad officers who supplied arrest records on morals charges, regardless of whether convictions had ensued. Regional FBI officers gathered data on gay bars, compiled lists of other places frequented by homosexuals, and clipped press articles that provided information about the gay world. . . . Federal investigators engaged in more than fact-finding; they also exhibited considerable zeal in using information they collected. 47. Two years after the Senate committee recommended that homosexuals be purged from government employment, Congress signaled its conviction that homosexuals had no place 11
in American society in the most palpable way possible: by denying them entry into the country. In 1952, Congress prohibited homosexuals (whom it called psychopaths) from entering the country, much as it previously had prohibited immigration from Asia and curtailed the immigration of Jews and Catholics from eastern and southern Europe. In the case of homosexuals, the prohibition extended beyond people seeking long-term residency or citizenship; a generation of foreign visitors applying for mere tourist visas had to sign statements swearing they were not homosexual before they could make even the briefest trip to the United States. 48. Many state and local governments followed the federal governments lead in seeking to ferret out and discharge their homosexual employees. As a result of these official policies, countless state employees, teachers, hospital workers, and others lost their jobs. Beginning in 1958, for instance, the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, which had been established by the legislature in 1956 to investigate and discredit civil rights activists, turned its attention to homosexuals working in the states universities and public schools. Its initial investigation of the University of Florida resulted in the dismissal of fourteen faculty and staff members, and in the next five years it interrogated some 320 suspected gay men and lesbians. It pressured countless others into relinquishing their teaching positions, and had many students quietly removed from state universities. Its 1959 report to the legislature called the extent of homosexual activity in the states school system absolutely appalling. In addition, in a well-publicized 1949 case in Massachusetts, Dr. Miriam Van Waters, long-time superintendent of the Womens Reformatory at Framingham, was dismissed by the Commissioner of Corrections because she had either not known or had known and had not prevented an unwholesome relationship that existed between inmates of the Reformatory, which had resulted in crushes, courtships, and homosexual practises [sic] among the inmates. She was then forced to defend her policies in public hearings held by a Massachusetts house committee over several months. 49. During this period, both federal and local agencies sought to curtail gay peoples freedom of speech and the freedom of all people to discuss homosexuality. In 1954, postal officials in Los Angeles banned an issue of the first gay political magazine, ONE, from the mails, a ban overturned by the Supreme Court in 1958. In some cities the police continued to shut down newsstands that dared to carry it. In 1957, San Francisco officials arrested Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Shig Murao for publishing and selling Howl, a poem by Allen Ginsberg that openly proclaimed his homosexuality. 50. Censorship, government-sanctioned discrimination, and the fear of both made it difficult for gay people to organize and speak out on their own behalf. Given the severity of anti-gay policing, for instance, the Mattachine Society, the most significant gay rights organization in the 1950s, repeatedly had to reassure its anxious members that the police would not seize its membership list. In Denver in 1959, a few weeks after Mattachine held its first press conference during a national convention, the police raided the homes of three of its Denver organizers; one lost his job and spent sixty days in jail. In 1962, a group of Philadelphia-based gay and lesbian activists founded the Janus Society of Delaware Valley. The Janus Society published the magazine Drum, which became the most widely circulated homophile magazine of the 1960s. The Janus Society, its magazine Drum, and Drums editor Clark Polak were kept under surveillance by local and federal law enforcement officials, and in 1965, the founder of a 12
Janus Society chapter in Harrisburg lost his job as director of finance for the Pennsylvania Highway Department after the his superiors were informed about the results of postal monitoring of his mail. B. The Demonization of Homosexuals
51. The official harassment of homosexuals received further legitimization from a series of press and police campaigns in the 1940s and 1950s that fomented demonic stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters out to recruit the young into their way of life. In response to a series of local panics over sex crimes against women and children, in which homosexuals were almost never identified as the culprits, numerous local newspapers and national magazines claimed that children faced a growing threat from homosexuals. The press warned that, in breaking with social convention to the extent necessary to engage in homosexual behavior, a man had demonstrated the refusal to adjust to social norms that was the hallmark of the psychopath. In 1950, Coronet, a popular national magazine, asserted: Once a man assumes the role of homosexual, he often throws off all moral restraints. . . . Some male sex deviants do not stop with infecting their often-innocent partners: they descend through perversions to other forms of depravity, such as drug addiction, burglary, sadism, and even murder. 52. The demonization of homosexuals by the press was reinforced by the statements of public officials. A Special Assistant Attorney General of California claimed in 1949 that [t]he sex pervert, in his more innocuous form, is too frequently regarded as merely a queer individual who never hurts anyone but himself. All too often we lose sight of the fact that the homosexual is an inveterate seducer of the young of both sexes, and is ever seeking for younger victims. Detroits prosecuting attorney demanded the authority to arrest, examine, and possibly confine indefinitely anyone who exhibited abnormal sexual behavior, whether or not dangerous. In 1957, the Hartford Courant reported on comments by a Connecticut judge at a criminal sentencing. The judge endorsed jail terms for homosexuals because his observation was that homosexuality ha[d] spread much too far. 53. Such press campaigns and official statements created fearsome new stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters, which continue to incite public fears about gay teachers and parents as well as other gay people who come into contact with children. Between the late 1930s and late 1950s, public hysteria incited by such press campaigns prompted more than half the state legislatures to enact laws allowing the police to force persons convicted of certain sexual offensesor, in some states, merely suspected of being sexual deviantsto undergo psychiatric examinations. These examinations could result in indeterminate civil confinements for individuals deemed in need of a cure for their homosexual pathology. C. Another Escalation of Anti-Gay Policing
54. During the postwar era, bars became an especially important meeting place for lesbians and gay men because they were often the only public spaces in which people dared to be openly gay. Given their growing importance to gay people as a social center and the growing pressure on the police to enforce regulations prohibiting bars from serving homosexuals, gay bars became an important battleground in the postwar years. Despite the prevailing popular animosity toward homosexuals, state courts in New York and California issued rulings that 13
curtailed the right of state liquor authorities and the police to discriminate against gay bar patrons. Official antipathy to homosexuals was so strong, however, that police officials circumvented or simply disregarded these judicial decisions. In California in the 1950s, notes historian Nan Alamilla Boyd, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board collapsed the difference between homosexual status (a state of being) and conduct (behavior) and suggested that any behavior that signified homosexual status could be construed as an illegal act. Simple acts such as random touching, mannish attire (in the case of lesbians), limp wrists, high-pitched voices, and/or tight clothing (in the case of gay men) became evidence of a bars dubious character and grounds for closing it. 55. This sharp escalation in the policing of gay life after the Second World War occurred throughout the country. In 1955, for example, the government of Boise, Idaho launched a fifteen-month investigation of gay men in town, interrogating fourteen hundred persons and pressuring men known to be gay to reveal the names of other gay men. Police departments from Seattle and Dallas to New Orleans and Baltimore stepped up their raids on bars and private parties attended by gay and lesbian persons, and made thousands of arrests for disorderly conduct. In the early 1950s in the District of Columbia, more than a thousand people were arrested on charges related to homosexuality every year. In 1965, the Boston City Councils Committee on Urban Renewal debated whether to bulldoze several downtown gay bars. A proponent of the effort, City Councilor Frederick Langone, gave a speech at the meeting calling for the destruction of these incubators of homosexuality and indecency and a Bohemian way of life, and insisting that [w]e must uproot these joints so innocent kids wont be contaminated. Many gay bars were razed in the revitalization that followed. In 1969, a Councilman in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, called for a nightclub frequented by homosexuals (Alices Joker Club) to be closed as a public nuisance because it was a threat to the morals of the towns citizens. From 1933 until the mid-1960s, hundreds of bars that tolerated gay customers were closed in New York City alone. Some bars in New York and Los Angeles posted signs telling potential gay customers: If You Are Gay, Please Stay Away or, more directly, We Do Not Serve Homosexuals. According to the historian John DEmilio, raids on gay bars in Chicago in this period were a fact of life, a danger every patron risked by walking through the door. 56. The policing of gay life escalated in Pennsylvania as well. By 1950, Philadelphia had a six-man morals squad arresting more gay men than the courts knew how to handle, some 200 a month. The Quarter Sessions Court created a neuropsychiatric department that year in order to help it process and treat the growing number of men arrested for sex offenses. Between 1951 and 1955, the department processed approximately 15 people a month, almost all of whom had been charged with sodomy or solicitation to commit sodomy. In 1952, the state legislature enacted a Sex Offender Act, which allowed judges to indefinitely commit people convicted of certain crimes, including sodomy and solicitation to commit sodomy, if they were deemed a threat to the public or both an habitual offender and mentally ill. The Philadelphia police periodically raided bars and coffee shops where gay people gathered. In 1960, the police even raided an organizational meeting for a new chapter of the Mattachine Society held in the Philadelphia suburb of Radnor and arrested 84 people.
14
VI.
THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND ITS OPPONENTS IN THE 1970s AND 1980s A. Early Successes of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement
57. The dramatic escalation in policing and suppression in the post-war years failed to eradicate gay life. In larger cities, lesbians and gay men covertly patronized bars and restaurants, which they turned into informal meeting places, took over remote sections of public beaches, and held dances and parties. In many smaller towns, gay life took shape unnoticed in church choirs, amateur theaters, and womens softball leagues, and was sustained by closely knit social circles. 58. Nonetheless, most gay men and lesbians responded to the escalation in policing after the Second World War by keeping their homosexuality carefully hidden from non-gay people. They developed elaborate verbal codes that allowed them to communicate with one another while remaining invisible to hostile outsiders. The word gay is a good example of this: before the 1970s few heterosexuals realized gay people had given it a distinctly homosexual meaning. But the very success of such subterfuges in concealing gay life made it difficult for gay people to find one another in the 1950s, and it severely limited the capacity of gay people to organize on their own behalf. 59. The earliest gay rights organizations, the Mattachine Society, ONE, and the Daughters of Bilitis, were founded in the early 1950s at the height of the demonization of homosexuals as dangerous, irrational, and unstable pariahs who threatened the nations children as well as national security. This initial generation of activists worked to meet and educate potential allies among sociologists, psychologists, criminologists, and other professionals who had the credibility to speak on homosexuality that was denied to gay people themselves. 60. Gay rights organizations began to influence public policy in the mid-1960s, although the pace of change varied enormously across the country. The New York Mattachine Societys success in 1966 in persuading Mayor John Lindsay to end the widespread police use of entrapment had a profound effect on gay male New Yorkers, who for the first time in decades did not have to worry that the men who approached them in bars and elsewhere were undercover policemen. New York and California state court rulings finally curtailed the policing of gay bars and other meeting places in those states in the 1960s, but in some other parts of the country the police continued to raid gay bars well into the 1970s and 1980s. The growing divergence in the treatment of gay people in different parts of the country prompted a growing number of gay people to migrate from hostile areas to New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other more tolerant cities and regions. This mass migration, in turn, affected the political and cultural climate of those cities and regions, making them more likely to enact gay rights legislation and similar policies. 61. Major institutions that once helped legitimize anti-gay attitudes also began to change their positions. Medical writers and mental health professionals whose stigmatization of homosexuality as a disease or disorder had been used to justify discrimination for decades were among the first to change their views. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association soon followed suit. However, the American Psychiatric Associations decision was 15
fiercely opposed by prominent members of the association such as Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber. They and other medical professionals who claimed homosexuality was a treatable psychological disorder continued to receive considerable attention. 62. Censorship of gay images and speech declined. By the early 1960s, competition from television led the Hollywood studios to reorganize their nearly thirty-year-old censorship code, enabling the studios to make films for adult viewers which addressed serious themes such as homosexuality. These themes remained off-limits for television. The studios initially still included very few gay characters in their features, and the television networks included virtually none, but ending formal censorship opened a door that resulted in significant cultural changes in later years. 63. A small but growing number of municipalities enacted legislation protecting people from certain forms of discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. In 1972, East Lansing, Michigan, home to Michigan State University, became the first town to do so. Within five years, another twenty-seven communities passed such legislation, more than half of them university towns such as Ann Arbor, Austin, Berkeley, and Madison. Ultimately, forty towns and cities enacted such legislation in the 1970s, including a handful of larger cities such as San Francisco, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Detroit. In the 1980s, forty more towns and cities enacted such legislation, including Pennsylvanias largest city, Philadelphia, which added sexual orientation to the citys Fair Practices Ordinance in 1982. (Pittsburgh, the next largest city, adopted these protections in 1990.) During this same period, however, a number of states enacted new legislation that criminalized homosexual sodomy, even as they decriminalized heterosexual sodomy. 64. Attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality in some religious denominations also began to change. Since the 1970s, many mainline Protestant denominations have issued official statements condemning legal discrimination against homosexuals and affirming that homosexuals ought to enjoy equal protection under criminal and civil law. Several of these groups descended from the historically influential denominations whose religious authority had been invoked to justify colonial statutes against sodomy. The Lutheran Church in America, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. all issued statements in support of civil rights for gay men and lesbians by 1980. 65. Those seven denominations, however, account for only 10.3 percent of the American population. Many more Americans belong to faith traditions that remain strongly opposed to gay civil rights, including 26.3 percent affiliated with historically white evangelical Protestant churches and 23.9 percent who are Catholics. Leading clergy and laypeople from those churches have played a major role in opposing gay rights measures across the country. B. Anti-Gay Discrimination
66. Gay men and lesbians continued to suffer discrimination at the hands of government officials in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, police continued to raid gay bars in some cities. In 1970, the Connecticut State Motor Vehicle Department refused to renew the 16
drivers license of a man on the grounds that he was an admitted homosexual and that his homosexuality makes him an improper person to hold an operators license. In 1977, the East Detroit Board of Education banned the appearance of gay speakers in district schools after a controversy erupted when three gay people were invited to speak to a high school sociology class on marriage. 67. Beginning in the 1970s, the initial success of the gay movement in securing local gay rights legislation, as well as the increasing visibility of gay people in the media, provoked a vigorous, negative reaction. Anti-gay rights advocates drew on pernicious stereotypes developed in previous decades to argue that enacting gay rights laws, permitting gay people to teach, and even simply allowing gay characters to appear on television sitcoms threatened the security of children and the stability of the family. 68. The anti-gay rights campaign of this era was effectively launched in 1977, when Anita Bryant, a prominent Baptist singer and the spokeswoman for the Florida citrus growers, led a campaign to Save Our Children from newly enacted civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians in Dade County, Florida. Her success in persuading a decisive majority of Miami voters to vote against the ordinance depended heavily on her use of the still powerful postwar images of homosexuals as child molesters. Her organization published a full-page advertisement the day before the vote warning that the other side of the homosexual coin is a hair-raising pattern of recruitment and outright seductions and molestation. Her victory in Miami prompted groups in other cities to take up the cause, and in the next three years, laws extending civil rights protections to gay men and lesbians were repealed in more than a half-dozen bitterly fought referenda stretching from St. Paul, Minnesota to Eugene, Oregon. Gay rights advocates managed to defeat such referenda only in two elections, in November 1978, when Seattle voted to preserve its antidiscrimination ordinance and when California rejected the Briggs Initiative. The Briggs Initiative was a proposal so onerous it would have prohibited public school teachers, gay or straight, from saying anything that could be construed as advocating homosexuality. 69. The Save Our Children campaign had other far-reaching effects. The day after the Dade County gay rights ordinance was repealed, the governor of Florida signed into law a ban on adoption by lesbians and gay men, the first such statewide prohibition. Thousands of children who might otherwise have had loving parents were thus denied the stability of family life. Similarly, in 1985, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services removed two boys from their foster care placement with a gay male couple and implemented a policy of preferred placement in traditional family settings. While Massachusetts ban was reversed in 1990 as a result of litigation, the Florida ban remained in effect until 2010. 70. Across the country, the unfounded fear that homosexuals posed a threat to children itself threatened some children: those already being raised by lesbians and gay men. In the 1970s, most children being raised by lesbian or gay parents had been born before their parents came out as gay. When a parent came out, any dispute over child custody that had to be resolved in court was likely to be heavily influenced by stereotypes and prejudices. A growing number of such cases reached the courts in the 1970s and 1980s, and in case after case the courts denied or restricted custody or visitation based on parents sexual orientation or same-sex relationship. For instance, in Pascarella v. Pascarella, 512 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986), the court upheld an order denying more than limited partial custody to a gay father based on his 17
sexual orientation and prohibiting the father from ever introducing his children to his boyfriend. It upheld the reasoning of the lower court that the gay fathers two girls are innocent and impressionable and do not know of nor could they even begin to understand the homosexual relationship of their father. It is inconceivable that they could go into that environment, be exposed to this relationship and not suffer some emotional disturbance, perhaps severe. Id. at 717. 71. The long-standing association of homosexuals with disease was reinforced in the 1980s by the medias initial sensationalist coverage of AIDS, which frequently depicted homosexuals as bearers of a deadly disease threatening others. Fear of contagion prompted a new wave of discrimination against gay people in medical care, housing, and employment. Media coverage and the governments slow response to the disease also reflected and reinforced the enduring conviction that homosexuals stood outside the moral boundaries of the nation. Even after the name AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) replaced the moniker GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency), media reports initially minimized the crisis by reassuring Americans that the general public was not at risk, since the disease only affected homosexuals and a handful of other groups, as if gay people were not part of the general public. 72. The media coverage of AIDS and the numerous campaigns against local gay rights laws had a dramatic effect on public opinion. In 1987, six years after the AIDS crisis unleashed a new wave of fear of homosexuals, public disapproval of homosexuality reached its peak. Polling data showed virtually no change through the 1970s, but the number of people who declared that homosexual relations were always wrong climbed from 73 percent in 1980 to 78 percent in 1987. In the 1980s, gay rights activists secured the enactment of gay rights ordinances in an additional forty cities, counties, and suburbs, including Chicago, Boston, New York, and Atlanta, bringing the national total to eighty. But these victories often were more difficult to achieve than they had been in the 1970s. In New York City, for example, the law passed the city council only after more than a decade. In Chicago, it took fifteen years of dogged struggle. 73. National religiously-inspired organizations formed in the 1970s and 1980s, such as the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and Traditional Values Coalition, provided national leadership and coordination to the movement against gay rights and disseminated campaign materials, political strategies, and financial resources to local groups fighting gay rights ordinances. VII. THE PERSISTENCE OF ANTI-GAY DISCRIMINATION FROM THE 1990s TO THE PRESENT A. Legal Inequality in State Law
74. The spread of AIDS and the escalation of debate over gay rights at the local level fueled a growing polarization of the nation over homosexuality in the 1980s and especially the 1990s. By the end of the 1980s, even cities and states that had managed to pass gay rights laws found those laws under attack from an increasingly well-organized and well-funded opposition. Beginning in 1988, and reaching a crescendo from 1991 to 1995, groups in Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Michigan, and five other states used local and state referenda and initiatives to challenge 18
gay rights laws, and built local anti-gay rights organizations. In the twenty-five years after Anita Bryants campaign in Florida, anti-gay activists introduced and campaigned for more than sixty anti-gay rights referenda around the country. In Oregon alone, there were sixteen local anti-gay initiatives in 1993 and another eleven in 1994. Oregons gay rights supporters lost all but one. Between 1974 and 2009, anti-gay activists introduced and campaigned for more than 100 antigay rights referenda across the country. 75. Following Anita Bryants lead, anti-gay rights activists frequently fomented voter fear of gay people by reviving demonic stereotypes of homosexuals as perverts who threatened the nations children and moral character. Two videos that were repeatedly screened in churches and on cable television, The Gay Agenda and Gay Rights, Special Rights, juxtaposed discussions of pedophilia with images of gay teachers and gay parents marching with their children in Gay Pride parades. With little subterfuge, the videos depicted homosexuals as child molesters. This message was reinforced by mass mailings and door-to-door distribution of antigay pamphlets, which fostered a climate of hostility and fear during the referenda. 76. In 1992, voters in Colorado passed Amendment Two, which amended the state constitution to prohibit any municipality or unit of the government from enacting anti-gay discrimination ordinances or policies. This amendment repealed the ordinances already enacted by Denver, Boulder, and Aspen. Moreover, it removed from the political arena any future effort to secure anti-discrimination legislation for gay people. In the face of public antipathy to gay people, represented by the success of this and other referenda overturning non-discrimination laws, several legal groups filed a lawsuit, Romer v. Evans, challenging the constitutionality of such constitutional amendments. Once again, the courts protected the rights of the minority against the prejudice of the majority. In 1996, the Supreme Court overturned this state constitutional amendment because it withdrew legal protection against discrimination for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, but no others. 77. Although a number of states now have extended basic anti-discrimination protections to gay men and lesbians, in twenty-nine states, including Pennsylvania, there is no statewide statutory barrier to firing, refusing to hire, or demoting a person in private sector employment solely on the basis of their identity as a gay man or lesbian. In approximately twenty states, there is no statewide statutory or administrative barrier to such discrimination even in state government employment. Similarly, gay men and lesbians remain without statutory protection from discrimination in housing in thirty states, including Pennsylvania. And, despite the critical role played by harassment of gay and lesbian meeting places in enforcing discrimination toward them throughout the twentieth century, gay and lesbian people in Pennsylvania and twenty-eight other states have no statewide statutory protection from discrimination in public accommodations. B. Legal Inequality in Federal Law
78. At the national level, employment discrimination against gay men and lesbians by federal agencies remained permissible until the late 1990s. Although the outright ban on hiring gay federal employees was lifted in 1975, federal agencies were free to discriminate against gay men and lesbians in hiring and employment decisions until former President Clinton issued a first-of-its-kind executive order forbidding such hiring discrimination in 1998. 19
79. In 1992, President Bill Clintons proposal to end the armed forces policy banning lesbians and gay men from serving in the military sparked a firestorm in the first months of his presidency and revealed how deeply divided the nation remained. The public outcry against his plan (calls to Congress ran a hundred to one against lifting the ban) had been stoked by years of local anti-gay organizing. Opposition to the new policy by both the Pentagon leadership and the public led Congress and President Clinton to enact a new law known as Dont Ask, Dont Tell, which allowed for the discharge of gay and lesbian soldiers if they acknowledged their sexual orientation under any circumstances, even in private counseling. Discharge of gay men and lesbians from the military continued after Dont Ask, Dont Tell became law in 1993. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization dedicated to assisting military personnel affected by Dont Ask, Dont Tell, more than 14,000 service members were fired under the law. 80. The repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell became effective in 2011. Although the repeal was an important advance for gay men and lesbians, it did not restore the careers of the thousands of service members who had been discharged under the policy. Nor does it protect gay men and lesbians from the significant discrimination that they continue to face in other domains. After years of effort, beginning in the 1970s, gay and lesbian advocates and their allies still have not been able to enact any federal legislation that specifically prohibits discrimination in schools, employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1994, advocates began seeking passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a pared down bill that would extend only employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation, and, in more recent versions, gender identity. Even with this narrower focus, the bill, which has been introduced in most of the last 11 Congresses, has been passed by each chamber only once, and has never passed both houses of Congress. C. Discrimination in Adoption, Custody, and Parenting
81. In the 1990s, lesbian mothers and gay fathers continued to risk their parenting rights when their former different-sex spouses used their sexual orientation to try to deny them custody or visitation rights in divorces. By the mid-1990s, courts in most states followed rules that required individualized assessment of a parents fitness. But as Julie Shapiros 1996 study of custody cases around the country demonstrated, many courts continued to infuse those individualized assessments with their own prejudice against lesbians and gay men. As she discovered, courts were especially disapproving of lesbians and gay men who were honest about their sexual orientation with their children. In a widely publicized case, a Virginia trial court in 1993 granted a grandmothers petition to take Sharon Bottoms two-year-old son away from her because, as the trial court judge explained, her lesbian conduct is illegal . . . a Class 6 felony in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He went on to declare that it is the opinion of this Court that her conduct is immoral and renders her an unfit parent. Virginias Supreme Court upheld the trial courts decision terminating Sharons parental rights despite the presumption favoring her as a natural parent. In doing so, it relied on a wider range of evidence, including the finding that Bottoms lesbianism would subject her child to social condemnation and thus disturb the childs relationships with peers and the community at large. Some courts had used similar reasoning to remove children from the homes of divorced white mothers who had married or lived with black men, a practice ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1984. In that case, Palmore v. 20
Sidoti, Chief Justice Warren Burger ruled that private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot directly, or indirectly, give them effect. 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984). But courts in many states continued to give legal effect to the private bias they assumed existed against lesbian and gay parents by preferring heterosexual parents over gay parents, without regard to other factors bearing on the childs best interests. 82. Even though discriminatory treatment of lesbian and gay parents in custody cases has now been rejected by appellate courts in most states, there are exceptions. As recently as 2007, the Virginia Court of Appeals upheld an order prohibiting a gay father from allowing his companion to occupy the home overnight or engaging in displays of affection while the children visit. See A.O.V. v. J.R.V., 2007 Va. App. LEXIS 64, *18 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2007). 83. State and popular efforts that began in the 1970s to ban lesbians and gay men from adopting or serving as foster parents continued throughout the 1990s and 2000s. For example, in 2000, Mississippis legislature passed a ban on adoption by same-sex couples that was subsequently signed by the governor. In 2004, Oklahoma passed the Adoption Invalidation Law, which stated that Oklahoma shall not recognize an adoption by more than one individual of the same sex from any other state or foreign jurisdiction. As recently as 2008, Arkansas enacted by popular referendum a ban on foster care and adoption by gay people. 84. Some states still refuse to allow a biological parents same-sex partner to adopt the children they raise together. For example, as recently as December 2010, the North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated a second parent adoption by a womans same-sex partner, holding that a non-biological same-sex partner could not be recognized as a legal parent. D. Depiction of Gay Men and Lesbians in the Media
85. With the decline in movie and television censorship and the growing interest in gay people and issues, there was a significant increase in the coverage of gay issues in the media and in the number of gay characters in movies and on television in the 1990s. By the time the immensely popular Will & Grace premiered on NBC in 1998, gay and lesbian characters were a more regular part of the television landscape. This exposure changed the dominant representation of homosexuals. Gay people usually appeared in the media in the 1950s as shadowy and dangerous figures, but they now appeared as a diverse and familiar group whose all-too-human struggles and pleasures drew the interest of large viewing audiences. 86. It was not only in the media that heterosexuals began to see gay and lesbian people. Dramatically increasing numbers of lesbians and gay men revealed their homosexuality to their families, friends, neighbors, and co-workers in the 1990s. Polling data suggest the magnitude of the shift. In 1985, only a quarter of Americans reported that a friend, relative, or co-worker had personally told them that they were gay, and more than half believed they did not know anyone gay. Fifteen years later, in 2000, the number of people who knew someone openly gay had tripled to three-quarters of the population. Acceptance of gay men and lesbians and support for civil rights protections increased as growing numbers of heterosexuals realized that some of the people they most loved and respected were gay. 87. It is important not to overstate the results of this nationwide coming out experience, however. In 2000, a significant majority of Americans still expressed moral 21
disapproval of homosexuality. Moreover, support for lesbian and gay civil rights and equality continued to show significant regional differences. Polls showed that public opinion in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Hawaii was the most tolerant. Support for civil rights also was strong in most other states in New England, in New Jersey and New York, and in other regional clusters: Maryland in the mid-Atlantic, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois in the upper Midwest, and California, Oregon, and Washington on the West Coast. Anti-gay sentiment was strongest in southern states and in the lower Midwest and Plains states. The effects of these regional differences could be seen in regional variations in congressional votes on key gay rights issues, in the treatment of gay couples and individuals by state laws, regulations, and court rulings concerning adoption and foster parenting, parental rights, and in the passage of gay rights laws. Only two statesWisconsin in 1982 and Massachusetts in 1989enacted legislation banning anti-gay discrimination before 1990. The number rose to eleven by 2000, but eight of the states were in the Northeast or on the Pacific Coast. The rights of gay people continue to vary enormously across the nation. E. Continued Official, Religious, and Private Condemnation of Homosexuality 88. Gay people also continue to face discrimination and opprobrium from highly regarded institutions and officials. The Boy Scouts of America, a federally-chartered organization, long insisted that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, and refused to allow gay people into the organization. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 651 (2000). In 2013, when the Boy Scouts announced that it would consider changing its national exclusionary membership policy to allow local leaders to decide whether to allow openly gay participants, the announcement ignited a firestorm of opposition. Dozens of conservative and religious groups lobbied against the proposed change as a grave mistake and petitioned the Boy Scouts to show courage and stand firm for timeless values; they succeeded in persuading the Boy Scouts to delay a vote on the issue. Although the national organization ultimately voted to allow gay boys to join the organization, it continues to exclude gay men over the age of 18. Just over a decade ago, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court referred, in a judicial opinion, to homosexual conduct as abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of natures God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Ex Parte H.H., 830 So. 2d 21, 26 (2002) (Moore, C.J., concurring). 89. Several state legislators in Pennsylvania condemned homosexuality as a perversion and danger to society during the 1990 floor debate in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives over a bill that would have extended hate crime protection to include intimidation based on sexual orientation. Representative A. Carville Foster, Jr. of York County, for instance, contended that the bill tried to equate perversion with ethnicity, religious background, or race, and asked do you think that homosexuality is something that we can be proud of and we can elevate in our society and hold out to our children as a fine way of life in America? That is what this bill is all about, plain and simple. It is simply an attempt to elevate perversion to a status that is totallytotallyout of place. Representative Dennis E. Leh of Berks County warned that the bill offends all the decent, legitimate minorities in Pennsylvania. These people whom we are going to give this privileged minority status to are not simply the gentlemen who like to walk around holding hands. They do have an agenda. Their agenda is to turn our society upside down. . . . This bill will turn our society upside down. This bill will require us to remove the slogan America Starts Here to America Ends Here, because sodomy 22
has always resulted in the collapse of a civilization. H.B. 1655, 45 House Legislative Journal at 1202, 1206 (Pa. Jun. 26, 1990). After the bill was defeated by a vote of 118 to 80, Representative Howard L. Fargo of Mercer County told the Associated Press: I feel in my heart and in my gut that to pass this bill is wrong. Its wrong to do anything legislatively to promote sexual perversion. Its wrong to do anything legislatively that would lead to the further deterioration of the traditional family and its values. 90. Although the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, dissident psychiatrists and psychologists led by Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi established the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in 1992. Disagreeing with both the APA and prevailing professional opinion, NARTH continues to disseminate materials claiming a scientific basis for believing that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and a potentially deadly lifestyle, and that homosexuals can be healed. NARTH also lectures, partners with religious organizations, supports conversion therapy activities, and files amicus briefs in court cases. F. Anti-Gay Policing and Private Anti-Gay Violence
91. Although police harassment of gay men and lesbians and their meeting places is not as common as it was some years ago, it continues to be a problem. In 2009, for example, there were highly publicized police raids of gay bars in Atlanta, Georgia, and in Ft. Worth, Texas, where one patron was critically injured. 92. Gay people also continue to face violence motivated by anti-gay bias. A handful of horrific incidents have drawn widespread media attention. In 1984, in Bangor, Maine, 23year-old Charlie Howard was targeted by three teens due to his sexual orientation. They attacked him and, although he protested that he could not swim, threw him off a bridge into the Kenduskeag Stream, where he drowned. Then, in 1998, Matthew Shepard, a college student in Laramie, Wyoming, was bound, tied to a fence, beaten with a pistol, and left to die because he was gay. Ten years later, Lawrence Larry Fobes King, a 15-year-old student at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California, was shot and killed in school by a fellow student because of his sexual orientation. But the problem reaches far beyond these three incidents. The FBI reported 1,260 hate crime incidents based on perceived sexual orientation in 1998 and 1,293 in 2011. In 2008, the year of Lawrence Kings murder, a national coalition of anti-violence social service agencies identified twenty-nine murders motivated by the assailants hatred of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people. The threat of violence continues to lead many gay people to hide their identities or to avoid such commonplace expressions of affection as holding hands with their partners in public. 93. The most vulnerable victims of discrimination are youth. According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Networks 2011 National School Climate Survey, 63.5 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students surveyed felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation; 81.9 percent were verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation; 38.3 percent were physically harassed in the past year because of their sexual orientation; and 18.3 percent were physically assaulted (e.g., punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon) because of their sexual orientation. A recent study sponsored by the New York City Council noted the over-representation of LGBT youth among the citys homeless population. 23
The fact that many parents still reject their children for being LGBT and even force them out of the home is one of the most poignant legacies of antigay animus and signs of the continued vulnerability of LGBT youth. The recent spate of suicides among LGBT youth has also highlighted the devastating personal consequences of the ostracism and demonization of gay men and lesbians in American society. A nationally representative study of adolescents in grades 7 12 found that youth with a same-sex sexual orientation were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide as their peers. 94. One example of the harassment that LGBT youth may face was recounted by Timothy Dahle, a high school student in the Titusville Area School District in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, who sued the District in 2000 for failing to protect him from anti-gay harassment. Dahles suit contended that for several years classmates threw food at him, stole his gym clothes, and even pushed him down flights of stairs. Dahle resorted to leaving each class three minutes early so he would not run into classmates in the hallway, and eventually he tried to kill himself by swallowing more than 100 prescription pills because he could not bear the thought of going back to school. His suit settled, resulting in the implementation of mandatory diversity training as well as a substantial payment. A decade later, on November 5, 2010, fourteen-year-old Brandon Bitner of Mount Pleasant Mills, Pennsylvania, killed himself in the early hours of the morning by stepping into the road in front of a tractor-trailer truck. He left a suicide note explaining that he could no longer tolerate constantly being bullied and called a faggot and sissy at school. F. Marriage
95. Gay men and lesbians are still prohibited from marrying in the vast majority of states in this country, and the question of marriage rights for same-sex couples remains hotly contested. Some of the arguments made in the debate over the right of gay couples to marry have echoed those made in earlier debates over the rights of disfavored minority groups. Fifty years ago, for instance, segregationists often claimed that segregation and statutes banning interracial marriage reflected Gods plan for humankind. In the 1960s, a Virginia judge who upheld that states law against interracial marriage in the lower-court proceeding in Loving v. Virginia claimed that Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. 96. Opponents of the right of gay people to marry or adopt children also have drawn on their reading of scripture to justify their positions. As recently as 2002, when the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals decision to grant a lesbian mother custody of her children, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama used language as strong as that used by the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia in his concurring opinion: Homosexuality is strongly condemned in the common law because it violates both natural and revealed law. The law of the Old Testament enforced this distinction between the genders by stating that [i]f a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 (King James) . . . the common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil, and if a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent. Ex parte H.H., 830 So. 2d 21, 33, 35 (Ala. 2002). 24
97. The vigorous opposition to ending discrimination against lesbian and gay couples in marriage law is the latest example of this pattern. The marriage issue first reached the national stage in 1993, when Hawaiis Supreme Court ruled that the states ban on marriages between same-sex couples presumptively violated the states equal rights amendment and remanded the lawsuit challenging that ban to a lower court for review. Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993). By 1996, when a second trial began in the lower court, the prospect of gay couples winning the right to marry had galvanized considerable opposition. Ultimately, while the litigation was pending, Hawaii amended its constitution to give the legislature the authority to limit marriage to different-sex couples, see Haw. Const. art. I, 23, which it did. The Hawaii Supreme Court then dismissed the case as moot. Baehr v. Miike, Civ. No. 20371 slip op. at 5-8 (Dec. 9, 1999) (taking notice of constitutional amendment). In addition, under pressure from organizations proclaiming support for traditional family values, the United States Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the day the Hawaii trial began. The Act provided a federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and declared that no state needed to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages licensed in another state. It also denied federal benefits to such married couples. Fourteen states passed state-level DOMA statutes that year, and another eleven passed such statutes the following year. In 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to permit gay couples to marry, a full thirteen states passed constitutional amendments banning such marriages even though twelve of those states already had enacted statutory state DOMAs. 98. Pennsylvania was one of the fourteen states in 1996 to amend state law to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying in the state and deny recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples who married out of state. The amendments sponsor in the House, Representative C. Allan Egolf of Perry County, contended that his amendment was an expression of Pennsylvanias traditional and longstanding policy of moral opposition to same-sex marriages. Representative Ronald Gamble of Allegheny County expressed dismay that he was even having to vote on the question of allowing same-sex couples to marry, and remarked, Thank God Im going back to Oakdale where men are men and women are women and, believe me boys and girls, theres one hell of a difference. Both houses passed the amendment by overwhelming votes, the House by 177 to 16, and the Senate by 43 to 5. 99. In May 2004, Representative Egolf, the prime sponsor of Pennsylvanias DOMA, and eleven other State Representatives who voted for Pennsylvanias DOMA or who had more recently joined the legislature and supported the legislation, filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court in an attempt to obtain a declaratory judgment that two men who had sought a marriage license in Bucks County were ineligible. In their complaint, the legislators argued, among other things, that societies that relax . . . restrictions [of sexual relationships to one man and one woman in marriage] have suffered decline within three generations. They also contended: Human physiology is designed for sex between males and females. Anal sex can cause tearing, bleeding, and other complications. Anal sex also promotes the spreading of disease. Even a woman who has sex with another woman is at substantial risk for sexually transmitted diseases. 100. In many states where gay men and lesbians have achieved the right to marry either through judicial decision or legislative actionthere has been significant and organized action by those opposed to marriage rights for same-sex couples to take that right away. 25
California provides a goodand especially contentiousexample. In February 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructed city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court ordered the city to stop doing so the following month, and it later nullified the marriages that had been performed. In 2005, and again in 2007, Californias legislature approved bills that would legalize marriage for same-sex couples, but both bills were vetoed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court decided in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008), that the privacy and due process provisions of the California Constitution guaranteed the basic civil right of marriage to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. Six months later, on November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, adding to the California Constitution the provision Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Same-sex couples immediately sued to prevent the enforcement of Proposition 8, but their efforts were rebuffed by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). The court held that the amendment was lawfully enacted, but that it did not invalidate marriages of same-sex couples performed in California prior to its effective date. The right of same-sex couples to marry in California was only restored in 2013 after a federal trial court found Proposition 8 unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to review the decision on the merits because no appellant had standing. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), affirmed on other grounds sub nom. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated by Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). 101. Opponents of marriage equality who supported Proposition 8 mobilized some of the most enduring anti-gay stereotypes to heighten public apprehension about the prospect of allowing lesbian or gay couples to marry. Several television commercials aired by the supporters of Proposition 8, for instance, warned that marriage equality might encourage children to become gay themselves. The approval of Californias Proposition 8 along with similar laws and constitutional amendments in forty other states indicates the enduring influence of anti-gay hostility and the persistence of ideas about the inequality of gay people and their relationships. 102. Although amending the state constitution in Pennsylvania is an unusually cumbersome process with many built-in safeguards, 1 legislators have sponsored bills proposing an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman during every regular session of the General Assembly since 2006. See H.B. 2381 and S.B. 1084 (2006); S.B. 1250 (2008); S.B. 707 (2010); H.B. 2011 (2011); H.B. 1349 (2013). The 2006 proposed constitutional amendment passed both houses of the General Assembly by large majorities136 to 61 in the House and 38 to 12 in the Senateand failed to continue toward a second passage and then referendum only because it passed with different versions in the different chambers and the Senates version of the bill was not taken up by the House within the required time period. Continuing legislative opposition to the right of same-sex couples to marry is also reflected in the fact that bills to repeal Pennsylvanias DOMA law have repeatedly failed to move out of committee. See S.B. 935 (2009), H.B. 1835 and S.B. 461 (2011), and S.B. 719 (2013). A proposed constitutional amendment must, in two consecutive legislative sessions, pass in both houses of the General Assembly and be published at least three months prior to the next general election within the period of the legislative session. Pa. Const. art. XI. 26
1
103. In supporting an amendment to the state constitution to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, Pennsylvania elected officials have repeatedly expressed their antipathy to lesbian and gay citizens of the Commonwealth. During the debate over the 2006 proposed constitutional amendment, for instance, several Pennsylvania legislators warned that failing to exclude same-sex couples from marriage would lead to the legalization of incest and bestiality. In 2009, Senator John Eichelberger of Blair County, who introduced the proposed 2010 constitutional amendment, called homosexual relationships dysfunctional and equated gay marriage with pedophilia. During his 2010 gubernatorial campaign, then Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett stated that a Constitutional amendment would help safeguard marriage against an alternative agenda. As recently as June 2013, several state lawmakers prevented Representative Brian K. Sims, an openly gay lawmaker from Philadelphia, from speaking on the House floor about the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Windsor v. United States. One of the lawmakers later explained that he did so because I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against Gods law. 104. Pennsylvanias chief executive officer, Governor Corbett, has continued to express his opposition to permitting same-sex couples to marry. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Windsor, Governor Corbett reaffirmed his support for the Pennsylvania law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. In October 2013, when asked about arguments his lawyers had made in opposing a lawsuit by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, he equated the marriage of a gay couple to the marriage of a brother and sister. CONCLUSION 105. The role of the courts in this dispute is reminiscent of earlier disputes in which courts had to confront public opposition to minority rights. In 1948, when the California Supreme Court became the first state supreme court in the nation to overturn a state law banning interracial marriage, it bucked the tide of white public opposition to such marriages. While the United States Supreme Court overturned the remaining state bans on interracial marriage in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, it was not until 2001 that more Americans approved of interracial marriage than disapproved of it. Today the civil rights enjoyed by gay and lesbian Americans vary substantially from region to region and are still subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion. Like other minority groups, they often must rely on judicial decisions to secure equal rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 14, 2014. By: George Chauncey, Ph. D.
27
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
GEORGE
CHAUNCEY
Department of History Yale University P.O. Box 208324 New Haven, CT 06520-8324 (203) 436-8100 george.chauncey@yale.edu
CURRENT POSITION
Samuel Knight Professor of History and American Studies, Yale University Co-director, Yale Research Initiative on the History of Sexualities
PREVIOUS POSITIONS
Professor of History, University of Chicago, 1997-2006. Visiting Professor of History, cole Normale Suprieure, Paris, May 2001. Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago, 1995-97. Assistant Professor of History, University of Chicago, 1991-95. Assistant Professor of History, New York University, 1990-91. Postdoctoral Fellow, Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis, 1989-90.
DEGREES
Ph.D., Yale University, 1989. M.Phil., Yale University, 1983. M.A., Yale University, 1981. B.A., Yale University, magna cum laude, 1977.
AWARDS
Gay New York was awarded the: Frederick Jackson Turner Award for the best first book on any topic in American history in 1994 Merle Curti Award for the best book in American social history in 1994 or 1995 (both from the Organization of American Historians), Los Angeles Times Book Prize for History (1994), Lambda Literary Award for Gay Mens Studies (1994), John Boswell Award of the Committee on Lesbian and Gay History of the American Historical Association (1995). Named a New York Times Notable Book of 1994. Village Voice List: one of the Best Books of 1994. Lingua Franca List: one of the two best academic books of the 1990s. Subject of a panel discussion, Charting Chaunceys Gay Male World: Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of Gay New York, at the 2004 meeting of the OAH. As a dissertation, Gay New York received the following prizes from Yale University: George Washington Egleston Prize in American history (1990), John Addison Porter Prize, Yales highest university-wide dissertation award (1990), Andrew Gaylord Bourne Gold Medal, the Yale History Departments triennial award for a pioneering work of scholarship (1992). Other Honors: Sidonie Miskimin Clauss Prize for Teaching Excellence in the Humanities, Yale, 2012

George Chauncey, page 2
New York Academy of History, elected to membership in 2007 Society of American Historians, elected to membership in 2005 Community Service Award from the Lesbian Community Cancer Project, Chicago, 2004. Freedom Award from Equality Illinois, the states largest gay rights group, 2001. First James Brudner Memorial Award in Lesbian and Gay Studies, Yale University, 2000. Centennial Historian of the City of New York, 1998. Sprague-Todes Literary Award, Gerber-Hart Library, 1997.
BOOKS AND EDITED COLLECTIONS

Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 Basic Books, 1994; paperback, 1995. British edition published by HarperCollins/U.K., 1995. French translation by Didier Eribon published by Fayard, 2003. Chapters reprinted in: The Columbia Reader on Lesbians and Gay Men in Media, Society, and Politics, eds. Larry Gross and James C. Woods (Columbia, 1999) The Gender and Consumer Culture Reader, ed. Jennifer Scanlon (NYU, 2000) Major Problems in the History of American Sexuality: Documents and Essays, ed. Kathy Peiss (Heath, 2001) Sexualities in History, eds. Kim M. Phillips and Barry Reay (Routledge, 2002). American Queer: Now and Then, ed. David Shneer and Caryn Aviv (Paradigm, 2006). The Strange Career of the Closet: Gay Culture, Consciousness, and Politics from the Second World War to the Gay Liberation Era (in progress, to be published by Basic Books). Why Marriage? The History Shaping Todays Debate Over Gay Equality (Basic Books, 2004; paperback, 2005). Japanese translation published by Akashi Shoten, 2006. Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past (Co-editor, with Martin Duberman and Martha Vicinus; a collection of thirty essays published by New American Library in 1989). Turkish translation published by Siyasal, 2002. Thinking Sexuality Transnationally (= special issue of GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 5:4 (1999), co-editor with Elizabeth Povinelli). Gender Histories and Heresies (= special issue of Radical History Review, 52 (1992), co-editor with Barbara Melosh).
ARTICLES IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS AND COLLECTIONS

The Trouble with Shame, in Gay Shame, ed. David Halperin and Valerie Traub (University of Chicago Press, 2010). How History Mattered: Sodomy Law and Marriage Reform in the United States, Public Culture 20:1 (2008): 27-38. Homosexuality, Family, and Society: Historical Perspectives from the United States, in Homosexuality and the Law: Essays and Materials from an International Workshop on Sexuality, Policy, and Law (Guangxi Normal University Press, 2007 [in Chinese and English]), 12-18, 115-23. Aprs Stonewall, le dplacement de la frontire entre le soi public et le soi priv, Histoire et Socits: revue europenne dhistoire sociale 3 (2002): 45-59. Skapets historie, Kvinneforskning 24 (2000): 56-71 [The History of the Closet, in the Norwegian journal Womens Studies].

Introduction: Thinking Sexuality Transnationally, with Elizabeth A. Povinelli, in Povinelli and Chauncey, eds., Thinking Sexuality Transnationally, special issue of GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 5:4 (Autumn 1999): 439-49. Gay New York, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 125 (December 1998): 9-14. [This article and the rest of the special issue on Homosexualits are introduced by ric Fassin, Politiques de lhistoire: Gay New York et lhistoriographie homosexuelle aux tas-Unis, 3-9.] Genres, identits sexuelles et conscience homosexuelle dans lAmrique du xxe sicle, in Les tudes gay et lesbiennes, ed. Didier Eribon (Paris: ditions du Centre Pompidou, 1998), 97-108. Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Female Prostitution and Male Homosexuality in Early Twentieth-Century America, GRAAT (Groupes de Recherches Anglo-Americaines de Tours) 17 (1997): 39-54. The Queer History and Politics of Lesbian and Gay Studies, Queer Frontiers: Millennial Geographies, Genders, and Generations, ed. Joseph Boone, et al. (University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), 298-315. From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality: Medicine and the Changing Conceptualization of Female Deviance, Salmagundi, no. 58-59 (Fall 1982-Winter 1983): 114-46. Reprinted in two collections: Homosexualidad: literatura y politica (Madrid, 1982), in Spanish Passion and Power: Sexuality in History, ed. Kathy Peiss and Christina Simmons (Temple University Press, 1989). Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion? Homosexual Identities and the Construction of Sexual Boundaries in the World War One Era, Journal of Social History 19:2 (1985): 189-211. Reprinted in ten collections: Onder Mannen, Onder Vrouwen (Amsterdam, 1984), in Dutch Sodomites, Invertis, Homosexuels: Perspectives Historiques (Paris, 1994), in French Expanding the Past: Essays from the Journal of Social History (New York University Press, 1988) Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past (NAL, 1989) Studies in Homosexuality: History of Homosexuality in Europe and America (Garland, 1992) Gender in American History Since 1890 (Routledge, 1993) Que(e)rying Religious Studies (Continuum, 1997) Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Culture, and Science of Homosexuality (Rowman & Littlefield, 1997) American Sexual Histories (Blackwell, 2001) Sexual Borderlands: Constructing An American Sexual Past (Ohio University Press, 2003) Privacy Could Only Be Had in Public: Gay Uses of the Streets, Stud: Architectures of Masculinity, ed. Joel Sanders (Princeton Architecture Press, 1996), 224-61. The Postwar Sex Crime Panic, True Stories from the American Past, ed. William Graebner (McGraw-Hill, 1993), 160-78. Long-Haired Men and Short-Haired Women: Building a Gay World in the Heart of Bohemia, Greenwich Village: Culture and Counterculture, ed. Rick Beard and Leslie Berlowitz (Rutgers University Press, 1993), 151-64. The Policed: Gay Mens Strategies of Everyday Resistance, Inventing Times Square: Commerce and Culture at the Crossroads of the World, 1880-1939, ed. William R. Taylor (Russell Sage, 1991), 315-28. Reprinted in Creating A Place For Ourselves: Lesbian, Gay`, and Bisexual Community Histories, ed. Brett Beemyn (Routledge, 1997). The National Panic Over Sex Crimes and the Construction of Cold War Sexual Ideology, 1947-1953, Sociologische Gids [Amsterdam] 32 (1985): 371-93. [In Dutch; title translated.] The Locus of Reproduction: Womens Labour in the Zambian Copperbelt, 1927-1953, Journal of Southern African Studies 7 (1981): 135-64.

SELECTED SHORT ESSAYS, REVIEWS, INTERVIEWS, AND ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES

Preface to Didier Eribon, Return to Reims, transl. from the French by Michael Lucey (Semiotext[e], 2013) The Long Road to Marriage Equality, op-ed on the Supreme Court marriage rulings, New York Times, June 26, 2013. Last Ban Standing, op-ed on the repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, New York Times, December 21, 2010. Gay at Yale: How Things Changed, Yale Alumni Magazine (July/August 2009), 32-43. George Chauncey: de lautre ct du placard, interview conducted by Philippe Mangeot for Vacarme, no. 26 (Winter 2004), 4-12. Dune march lautre, interview conducted by Sbastien Chauvin for Ttu (June 2004), 86-87. Review of James McCourt, Queer Street: Rise and Fall of an American Culture, 1947-1985, New York Times, December 31, 2003. Etats Unis and New York, in Dictionnaire Des Cultures Gays Et Lesbiennes, ed. Didier Eribon, Arnaud Lerch, Frederic Haboury (Larousee, 2003). Introduction, Homosexuality in the City: A Century of Research at the University of Chicago (University of Chicago Library, 2000). Who is Welcome at Ellis Island? AIDS Activism and the Expanding National Community, Honoring With Pride: An Evening Benefit for the American Foundation for AIDS Research on Ellis Island, program book, June 21, 2000. The Ridicule of Lesbian and Gay Studies Threatens All Academic Inquiry, back page Point of View column, Chronicle of Higher Education, July 3, 1998. Review of Charles Kaiser, The Gay Metropolis, 1940-1996, New York Times , December 30, 1997. Review of Daniel Harris, The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture, New York Times Book Review, September 7, 1997. The Joy of No Sex, part of a Talk-of-the-Town roundtable on the Heavens Gate mass suicide, The New Yorker, April 14, 1997, 31-32. The Present as History, Out Magazine, February 1997, 69. Tea and Sympathy, Past Imperfect: History According to Hollywood, ed. Mark Carnes (Henry Holt, 1995), 258-61. Gay male community, in The Encyclopedia of New York City, ed. Kenneth Jackson (Yale, 1995). A Gay World, Vibrant and Forgotten, New York Times Op-Ed Page, Sunday, June 26, 1994. Queer Old New York: A Historic Walking Tour, Village Voice, June 21, 1994, 25-27. Homosexuality, The Encyclopedia of Social History, ed. Peter N. Stearns (Garland, 1993), 323-25. Time on Two Crosses: An Interview with Bayard Rustin (with Lisa Kennedy), Village Voice, June 30, 1987, 27-29. Gay Male Society in the Jazz Age, Village Voice, July 1, 1986, 29-34.
FELLOWSHIP AWARDS
New York Public Library Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers Residential Fellowship, 2004-5. Princeton University Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies Fellowship, 2004-5 [declined]. Institute for Advanced Study School of Social Science Membership, 2004-5 [declined]. Social Science Research Council Sexuality Research Fellowship, two Faculty Advisor Awards, 2002-3. Social Science Research Council Sexuality Research Fellowship, Faculty Advisor Award, 1999-2000. Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Indiana University, September 1998.

Social Science Research Council Sexuality Research Fellowship, two Faculty Advisor Awards, 1997-98. John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship, 1996-97. National Humanities Center Rockefeller Fellowship and Residency, 1996-97. American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship for Recent Recipients of the Ph.D., 1992-93. Cornell University Society for the Humanities Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1991-92 [declined in order to accept new position at Chicago]. Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1989-90. New York University School of Law Samuel Golieb Fellowship in Legal History, 1987-88. Mrs. G. Whiting Foundation Fellowship in the Humanities, 1986-87. Woodrow Wilson Foundation Research Grant in Women's Studies, 1984. Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy History Fellowship, 1983-84. Yale College Prize Teaching Fellowship, 1982-83. Danforth Foundation Graduate Fellowship, 1979-82. John Courtney Murray Travelling Fellowship, 1977-78 [supported research in Zambia].
PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS

Ford Foundation, grant in support of The Future of the Queer Past: A Transnational History Conference, University of Chicago, 2000. Rockefeller Foundation, grant in support of The Future of the Queer Past: A Transnational History Conference, University of Chicago, 2000. Illinois Humanities Council, grant in support of The Future of the Queer Past: A Transnational History Conference, University of Chicago, 2000. Mellon Foundation, grant in support of the Sawyer Seminar on Sexual Identities and Identity Politics in Transnational Perspective, University of Chicago, 1997-98.
NAMED LECTURES, PLENARY LECTURES, AND SELECTED FOREIGN LECTURES

From Sodomy Laws to Marriage Amendments: The History Shaping Todays Debate over LGBT Equality, keynote address at Toward a More Perfect Union: Civil Rights, Human Rights, and Creating a New Age of Social Responsibility, Benjamin Hooks Conference for Social Change, University of Memphis, April 18-20, 2012 Single Men, Urban Decline, and the Cultural Logic of Postwar American Antigay Politics, Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis Twentieth Anniversary Celebration Conference, Rutgers University, May 7, 2010 Homosexuality and the Postwar City, Center for Interdisciplinary Research in the Arts, University of Manchester, England, March 2009. Homosexuality and the Postwar City, keynote lecture, Australia-New Zealand American Studies Association, Sydney, July 2008. From Sodomy Laws to Marriage Amendments: A History of Sexual Identity/Politics, Provosts Lecture, University of Maryland, College Park, February 2008. Revisiting the Postwar Politics of Sexuality, keynote lecture (with Joanne Meyerowitz), New England American Studies Association, Brown University, November 2007. From Sodomy Laws to Marriage Amendments: A History of Sexual Identity/Politics, Presidential Lecture, Columbia University, April 2007. Why Come Out of the Closet? Secrecy, Authenticity, and the Shifting Boundaries of the Public and Private Self in the 1950s and 60s, Vern and Bonnie Bullough Lecture in the History of Sexuality and Gender, University of Utah, April 2007. The Future of Sexuality Studies, at the plenary session of the Sexuality Research Fellowship Programs Capstone Conference (commemorating the conclusion of a ten-year-long fellowship program funded by the Ford Foundation and administered by the Social Science Research Council), Tamayo Resort, New Mexico, April 2006.

Homosexuality, State, and Society: Historical Perspectives from the United States, at the symposium Diversity, Equality and Harmony: International Workshop on Sexuality, Policy and Law, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, January 2006. How History Mattered: Sodomy Law and Marriage Reform in the United States, at the conference Partisan Histories: Conflicted Pasts and Public Life, The Australian National University, Canberra, September 2005. From Sodomy Laws to Marriage Amendments: Sexual Identity/Politics Since 1900, Kaplan Lecture, University of Pennsylvania, March 2004. Reflections on Gay New York and Beyond, at the symposium Histoire sexuelle et histoire sociale, loccasion de la traduction franaise de Gay New York 1890-1940 de George Chauncey, cole normale suprieure, Paris, December 2003. Civil Rights, Gay Rights, Human Rights, dual keynote address given with Mrs. Coretta Scott King at the beginning of Outgiving, a conference on gay philanthropy organized by the Gill Foundation, Atlanta, September 2003. Drag Balls as Society Balls: Phil Blacks Funmakers Ball and the Changing Rituals of Belonging in African American Society, 1940-1973, Mark Ouderkirk Memorial Lecture, Museum of the City of New York, September 2003. A Different West Side Story: Latino Gay Culture and Antigay Politics in Postwar New York City, Nicholas Papadopoulos Endowed Lecture in Lesbian and Gay Studies, University of California, San Diego, February 2003. Why Come Out of the Closet? Secrecy, Authenticity, and the Shifting Boundaries of the Public and Private Self in the 1950s and 60s, The Rahv, Hughes, Manuel and Marcuse Memorial Lecture, Brandeis University, February 2003. Sexual Identity in the Twentieth Century, Womens Breakfast, American Historical Association, January 2003. Sexuality, Intimacy, and History, Commencement Address, University of Chicago, June 2002. Why Come Out of the Closet? Authenticity, Post/Modernity, and the Shifting Boundaries of the Public and Private Self in the 1950s and 60s, at Histoire de la sexualit: changes transatlantiques, at the cole normale suprieure, Paris, May 2001. The History of the Closet, Inaugural George Mosse Memorial Lecture, University of Wisconsin, April 2001. The History of the Closet, at the Sexuality 2000 Symposium, Oslo, Norway, August 2000. Why Come Out of the Closet? Authenticity, Post/Modernity, and the Shifting Boundaries of the Public and Private Self in the 1950s and 60s, Inaugural Brudner Prize Lecture, Yale University, February 2000. Rethinking the History of Homosexuality and the Category of the Homosexual and A Research Program for Lesbian and Gay Studies, at the First Swedish Conference on Research on Homosexuality and Lesbianism, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, November 1995. The National Panic over Sex Crimes in Cold War America, Inaugural Mark Ouderkirk Memorial Lecture, Museum of the City of New York, June 1995. Gay Studies on Trial: Queer History/Politics/Studies, at the Fifth National Graduate Student Conference on Lesbian and Gay Studies, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, March 1995. The Kinsey Scale and the Consolidation of the Hetero-Homosexual Binarism in the Twentieth Century, at the Second International Conference on the History of Marriage and the Family, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, 1994. European Sexual Cultures in the Immigrant Neighborhoods of New York City, 1890-1940, at the International Conference on European Sexual Cultures, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1992.

Publish and Perish? Lesbian/Gay Studies, Publishing, and the Academy, at the plenary session on New Directions in Scholarship, Association of American University Presses, Chicago, June 1992.
OTHER INVITED LECTURES SINCE 1989

Lcole des hautes tudes in sciences sociales, Paris, October 25, 2013 Kim & Eric Giler Lecture in the Humanities, Carnegie Mellon University, October 10, 2013 Internationale Kolleg fr Kulturtechnikforschung und Medienphilosophie, Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Germany, April 18, 2013 University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 14 and 15, 2013 University of Southampton, UK, February 21, 2013 Chicago Humanities Festival, November 4, 2012 Social Policies, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation Studies Association, Istanbul, Turkey, July 5, 2012 Chicago History Museum, April 14, 2011 Columbia University, February 19, 2011 University of Antwerp, Belgium, March 20, 2010 University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 15, 2010 Middlebury College, October 17, 2008. The Rothmere American Institute, Oxford University, UK, April 30, 2008. University of Texas, Austin, April 11, 2008. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 3, 2006. Facultad de Filosofa y Letras, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 20, 2006. Kansas State University, March 10, 2006. University of Miami, February 27, 2006. DePaul University, Chicago, February 20, 2006. Harvard University, February 3, 2006. University of Massachusetts, Boston, February 3, 2006. Boston University, February 2, 2006. Yale University, January 17, 2006. University of Melbourne, Australia, September 21, 2005. University of Sydney, Australia, September 7, 2005. New York University, April 19, 2005. Chicago Historical Society, May 27, 2004. University of North Texas, April 17, 2004. University of Maryland, February 23, 2004. University of California, Berkeley, September 25, 2003. University of California, Los Angeles, February 20, 2003. University of Minnesota, February 15, 2002. Texas A&M University, April 25, 2001. William and Mary College, April 18, 2001. Northwestern University, April 5, 2001. Harvard University, November 16, 2000. Trinity College, November 15, 2000. University of Michigan, April 15, 2000. University of Connecticut, Storrs, February 17, 2000. Hobart and William Smith Colleges, February 13, 2000. Chicago Humanities Festival, November 8, 1998. Indiana University, September 17, 1998. University of Minnesota, May 22, 1998. Institute for the Humanities, University of Illinois, Chicago, February 13, 1998. Pompidou Center, Paris, June 27, 1997. Colby College, April 10, 1997. Cornell University, April 8, 1997. University of California, Los Angeles, February 5, 1997. University of California, Irvine, February 3-4, 1997. Northwestern University, December 6, 1996.

Yale University, American Studies and History Departments, November 7, 1996. Yale School of Architecture Urbanism Series, November 7, 1996. University of Copenhagen, Denmark, November 3, 1995. National Danish Lesbian and Gay Organization, Copenhagen, November 3, 1995. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, MillerComm Lectures, October 23, 24, 1995. University of Notre Dame, September 9, 10, 1995. Princeton University, March 9, 1995. Chicago Teachers Institute, December 7, 1994. New York Academy of Medicine, New York City, November 10, 1994. University of Chicago New York City Club, Distinguished Faculty Lecture Series, October 13, 1994. Northwestern University, May 17, 1994. New York Public Library, Celeste Bartos Forum, May 3, 1994. [This lecture was later broadcast on public television.] New York University, April 29, 1994. Rutgers University, December 6, 1993. Newberry Library Social History Seminar, June 8, 1993. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Center for Twentieth Century Studies, March 25, 1993. Urban History Seminar of the Chicago Historical Society, January 12, 1993. University of Illinois at Chicago, November 11, 1992. New York City Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, Gregory Kolovakas Memorial Lecture Series, November 19, 1992. University of Oregon, April 24, 1992. Cornell University, February 24, 1992. University of Chicago Centennial Symposium, Canons in the Age of Mass Culture, February 10, 1992. Northwestern University, May 30, 1991. Johns Hopkins University, March 28, 1991. Sarah Lawrence College, November 27, 1990. Carleton College, April 5, 1990. Museum of the City of New York, November 5, 1989. Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis, October 3, 1989. Rutgers University, Camden, April 6, 1989.
Exhibit B
BIBLIOGRAPHY A.O.V. v. J.R.V., 2007 Va. App. LEXIS 64 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2007). Appeal of Clock Bar, Inc., 39 Pa. D. & C.2d 667 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1966). Appeal of Anthony Wayne Bar and Restaurant, 42 Pa. D. & C.2d 712 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1966). Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993). Baehr v. Miike, Civ. No. 20371 slip op. (Haw. Dec. 9, 1999). Allan Brub, Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II (New York: Free Press, 1992). Boseman v. Jarrell, 704 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 2010). Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Nan Alamilla Boyd, Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). Lara Brenckle, Teen suicide victim was tired of being bullied at school, family says, The Patriot-News (Nov. 15, 2010) Robbie Brown, Antipathy Toward Obama Seen as Helping Arkansas Limit Adoption, The New York Times, Nov. 8, 2008 at A26. Margot Canaday, The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm. David L. Chambers and Nancy D. Polikoff, Family Law and Gay and Lesbian Family Issues in the Twentieth Century, 33 Family Law Quarterly, 1999-2000. George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 (New York: Basic Books, 1994). George Chauncey, Why Marriage? The History Shaping Todays Debate over Gay Equality (New York: Basic Books, 2004). George Chauncey, Martin Duberman, and Martha Vicinus, eds., Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past (NAL, 1989).
George Chauncey, From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality: Medicine and the Changing Conceptualization of Female Deviance, 58-59 Salmagundi 114-46 (Fall 1982-Winter 1983). George Chauncey, Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion? Homosexual Identities and the Construction of Sexual Boundaries in the World War One Era, 19 Journal of Social History 189-211 (1985). George Chauncey, The Postwar Sex Crime Panic, in True Stories from the American Past (William Graebner edit., McGraw-Hill: 1993), pp.160-78. Dudley Clendinin and Adam Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). Constant A. v. Paul C.A., 496 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985). Angela Couloumbis and Tom Infield, Gay Marriage in PA? Not Just Yet, Phila. Inquirer, May 11, 2012. Ronald & Diane D. v. Titusville, No. Civ. 00-174 (W.D. Pa.): Docket Sheet Opinion, 159 F. Supp. 2d 857 (W.D. Pa. 2001). John DEmilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority, 19401970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Doe v. Commonwealths Attorney for Richmond, 403 F. Supp. 1199, 1202 (E.D. Va. 1975), affd 425 U.S. 901 (1976). Laura E. Durso and Gary J. Gates, Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of Services Providers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth Who Are Homeless or At Risk of Being Homeless (2012). E. Detroit school board bans gay speakers, The Macomb Daily, July 26, 1977, p. 1. Editorial, Why We Need A Marriage Protection Amendment, Pitt. Post-Gazette, Apr. 12, 2006, at B7. Egolf v. Seneca, No. 2004-03160-28-5, (Ct. Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pa.) Complaint in Action for Declaratory Judgment (May 13, 2004) Order and Opinion. Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services, A Count of Homeless Youth in New York City (Empire State Coalition, 2008). Erica Erwin, From Torment to Teaching, Erie Times-News (Dec. 8, 2006) Tanya Erzen, Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-Gay Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006). 2
Ex Parte H.H., 830 So. 2d 21 (2002) (Moore, C.J., concurring). Lillian Faderman and Stuart Timmons, Gay L.A.: A History of Sexual Outlaws, Power Politics, and Lipstick Lesbians (New York: Basic Books, 2006). Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007). Estelle B. Freedman, Uncontrolled Desires: The Response to the Sexual Psychopath, 1920 1960, 74 Journal of American History 83106 (1987). Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nations Schools, (New York: GLSEN, 2011). Gay Rights Bill Loses in Pennsylvania, San Francisco Chronicle (June 28, 1990). General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DODs Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot be Completely Estimated (2005). Richard Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2002). Jeff Hawkes, To Boyd, marriage completes you unless youre gay, LancasterOnline.com (Jan. 24, 2006). H.B. 2381, Printers No. 3397, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2006), and bill history H.B. 1655, Printers No. 3955, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 1990), and bill history H.B. 1434, Printers No. 1724, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2011), and bill history H.B. 1349, Printers No. 1743, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2013), and bill history H.B. 1835, Printers No. 2367, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2011), and bill history Henkle v. Gregory, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Nev. 2001). The History Project, Improper Bostonians (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998). Conversation with Andy Hoover, Legislative Director, ACLU-PA, Feb. 12, 2014. In re Freedman, 235 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. Ct.1967). In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). Jail Terms Urged for Offenders, The Hartford Courant, Sep. 21, 1957 at 3.
Ron Jenkins, Henry signs measure on gay adoptions, The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 4, 2004. David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004). Mark D. Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). Just the Facts Coalition, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2004) Jonathan Ned Katz, Gay/Lesbian Almanac: A New Documentary (New York: Harper & Row, 1983). Kern v. Taney, No. 09-10738 #2 (Ct. Common Pleas, Berks County, Pa.): Notice of Intervention of the Attorney General (Feb. 11, 2010) Attorney Generals Mem. of Law Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 235 (Feb. 11, 2010) Transcript of Proceedings (Feb. 17, 2010) Lambda Legal, Groundbreaking Legal Settlement is First to Recognize Constitutional Right of Gay and Lesbian Students to be Out at School & Protected From Harassment, http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ca_20020828_groundbreaking-legal-settlement-firstto-recognize. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Floyd Lawrence, Outing intolerance, Erie Times-News (Oct. 15, 2009). Marc Levy, Gay marriage ban passes Senate, Associated Press (June 21, 2006). Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Eric Marcus, Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights (2002). Mauriello, Early Returns, Pitt. Post-Gazette (Jun. 29, 2009), quoted in The Hotline (June 30, 2009), available at 2009 WLNR 14846542. Rick Maze, Defense bill decriminalizes consensual sodomy, Military Times (Dec. 10, 2013), available at http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20131210/NEWS05/ 312100017/Defense-bill-decriminalizes-consensual-sodomy.
Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s 10 Journal of the History of Sexuality 78 116 (2001). Boy Scouts of America, Membership Resolution Points of Clarification, http://www.bsaseabase.org/sitecore/content/membershipstandards/resolution/faq.aspx. National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, NARTH Position Statements, http://narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html. National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, The Three Myths About Homosexuality, http://narth.com/menus/myths.html. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Hate Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People in the United States, 2008 (National Coalition, 2009). National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 1707 (Dec. 26, 2013). National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, State Laws Prohibiting Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships (Oct. 21, 2013), available at http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/reports/ issue_maps/rel_recog_10_21_13_color.pdf. Megan OMatz, House Stands Against Same-Sex Marriage, Morning Call (Allentown), June 29, 1996. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984). 190 Pa. Legislative Journal Senate, 1771-1782 (June 21, 2006). 190 Pa. Legislative Journal House, 1139-1159 (June 6, 2006). 174 Pa. Legislative Journal House, 1202-1212 (June 26, 1990). 192 Pa. Legislative Journal Senate, 1955 (May 6, 2008). 179 Pa. Legislative Journal Senate, 544 (May 23, 1996). 179 Pa. Legislative Journal House, 2016-2035 (June 28, 1996). 179 Pa. Legislative Journal Senate, 2452-2454 (Oct. 1, 1996). 179 Pa. Legislative Journal House, 2186-2187 (Oct. 7, 1996). 179 Pa. Legislative Journal House, 2193-2194 (Oct. 7, 1996). Pa. student alleges bullying in suicide note, Associated Press (Nov. 10, 2010). 5
Pascarella v. Pascarella, 512 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Pennsylvania Primary Election, 25 Viewpoint Newsletter of the Pa. Catholic Conference (May 18, 2010). Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), affirmed on other grounds sub nom. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated by Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, (Feb. 2008). The Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, Philadelphia Code ch. 9-1100. Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, chs. 651 and 659. Tricia Pursell, Friends: Bullying led to tragedy, The Daily Item (Nov. 6, 2010). Martha Raffaele, House puts off gay marriage debate until after election, AP Alert, May 26, 2004. Frank Reeves, State House Approves Bill that Prohibits Gay Marriage, Pitts. Post-Gazette, June 30, 1996, at E7. Mollie Reilly, Brian Sims, Pennsylvania Lawmaker, Silenced on DOMA by Colleagues Citing Gods Law, Huffington Post (last updated Jun. 28, 2013, 4:00 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/brian-sims-doma_n_3513741.html. Glen Retief, Brandon Bitners Story: An Interview With His Mom, Your Teen (Sep. 20, 2012). Roe v. Roe, 228 Va. 722 (1985). Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Amy Ronner, Bottoms v. Bottoms: The Lesbian Mother and the Judicial Perpetuation of Damaging Stereotypes, 7 Yale J. L. & Feminism, 1995. Clifford J. Rosky, Like Father Like Son: Homosexuality, Parenthood and the Gender of Homophobia, 20 Yale J .L. & Feminism, 2009. Teemu Ruskola, Minor Disregard: The Legal Construction of the Fantasy that Gay and Lesbian Youth Do Not Exist, 8 Yale J. L. & Feminism 269, 1996. Stephen T. Russell, and Kara Joyner, Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence from a national study, American Journal of Public Health (2001) 91:12761281. 6
S.B. 461, Printers No. 450, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2011), and bill history. S.B. 707, Printers No. 1682, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2010), and bill history. S.B. 719, Printers No. 740, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2013), and bill history. S.B. 935, Printers No. 1124, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2009), and bill history. S.B. 1250, Printers No. 1776, Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2008), and bill history. Mark Scolforo, Governor Corbett: Gay marriage is like marriage of brother and sister (Oct. 4, 2013), available at http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?id=9273985. Brad Sears, Christy Mallory, and Nan D. Hunter, Voters Initiatives to Repeal or Prevent Laws Prohibiting Employment Discrimination Against LGBT People, 1974-Present, in Documenting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in State Employment (Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, 2009). Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, About Dont Ask, Dont Tell (2011). Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, About the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (2011). Julie Shapiro, Custody and Conduct: How the Law Fails Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children, 71 Indiana L. J. 71 623-627, 1996. Stan Simon, Homosexual Fights Driving Ban, The Hartford Courant, Nov. 6, 1970 at 17. Marc Stein, City of Sisterly and Brotherly Loves: Lesbian and Gay Philadelphia, 1945-1972 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004). Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). Andy Towle, Anti-Gay Bullying Blamed in Suicide of Pennsylvania Teen, Towleroad (Nov. 8, 2010), http://www.towleroad.com/2010/11/anti-gay-bullying-blamed-in-suicide-ofpennsylvania-teen.html. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 1998. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2011. William H. Whitmore, A Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony from 1630 to 1686 (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1890). Casey Wilan and Michael Pearson, Boy Scout Leaders Put Off Gay Vote on Gay Membership, CNN U.S. (Feb. 6, 2013, 2:40 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/us/boy-scoutspolicy. 7
Gary Joseph Wilson, Marriage Equality Is Still a Heavy Lift in Pennsylvania, PA Independent (June 27, 2013). Amy Worden, Pa. moves to ban same-sex marriage, Phila. Inquirer, June 7, 2006, at A1. Gina Zotti, 5 PA county lawmakers co-sponsor marriage bill, Daily Local, Jan. 29, 2006.
EXHIBIT PX-04
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, FREDIA HURDLE and LYNN HURDLE, EDWIN HILL and DAVID PALMER, HEATHER POEHLER and KATH POEHLER, FERNANDO CHANG-MUY and LEN RIESER, DAWN PLUMMER and DIANA POLSON, ANGELA GILLEM and GAIL LLOYD, HELENA MILLER and DARA RASPBERRY, RON GEBHARDTSBAUER and GREG WRIGHT, MARLA CATTERMOLE and JULIA LOBUR, SANDY FERLANIE and CHRISTINE DONATO, MAUREEN HENNESSEY, and A.W. AND K.W., minor children, by and through their parents and next friends, DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL WOLF, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Health; DAN MEUSER, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Revenue; and DONALD PETRILLE, JR., in his official capacity as Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court of Bucks County, Defendants. EXPERT REPORT OF NANCY F. COTT I, Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D., hereby declare and state that I am an adult over the age of 18 and am competent to testify to the following matters if called as a witness:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. My name is Nancy F. Cott. I have been retained by counsel for plaintiffs to prepare this expert report in connection with the above-captioned litigation. This report is given based on my personal specialized knowledge, informed by my education and experience as an historian, and by my familiarity with relevant scholarly work by other scholars on the topic of marriage and family, of which a brief list is appended to this report. My background, experience,
and list of publications are summarized in my curriculum vitae, appended to this report as Exhibit A. 2. In 1969, I received a masters degree in History of American Civilization from Brandeis University. In 1974, I received a Ph.D. degree in History of American Civilization from Brandeis University. Since that time, I have researched and taught United States history. I taught for twenty-six years at Yale University, where I gained the highest honor of a Sterling Professorship, and in 2002 I joined the faculty at Harvard University. 3. I am presently the Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History at Harvard University. I teach graduate students and undergraduates in the area of American social, cultural and political history, including history of marriage, the family, and gender roles. I also am the Pforzheimer Family Foundation Director of the Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. 4. In the past four years, I have testified as an expert either at trial or through declaration or been deposed as an expert in U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), De Leon v. Perry, Case No. 5:13-cv-982 (W.D. Tex.), Cooper-Harris v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125030 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2013), Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Cal. 2012), Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012), Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012), Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012), Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Darby v. Orr, Lazaro v. Orr, Nos. 12 CH 19718 & 19719 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty.). 5. I am being compensated at a flat rate of $1,000.00 for the preparation of this report, and an hourly rate for actual time devoted, at the rate of $250.00 per hour, for testimony. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide. 6. I am the author or editor of eight published books, including PUBLIC VOWS: A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE AND THE NATION (2000), the subject of which is marriage as a public institution in the United States. I also have published over twenty scholarly articles, including several discussing the history of marriage in the United States. I have delivered scores of academic lectures and papers over the past thirty-five years on a variety of topics, including the
history of marriage in the United States. I also have served on many advisory and editorial boards of academic journals. 7. I have received numerous fellowships, honors and grants, from a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship in 1985 and National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship in 1993, to a Fulbright Lectureship in Japan in 2001 and election to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008. 8. I spent over a decade researching the history of marriage in the United States, especially its legal attributes, obligations, and social meaning, before and while writing my book PUBLIC VOWS: A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE AND THE NATION. The statements and evidence in this expert report come principally from the research for that book and many of them are more fully documented there and in an article based on that research, Marriage and Womens Citizenship, AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (1998). The numerous historical sources, legal cases, and government documents that I studied and analyzed while researching and writing the book, as well as the other scholars work that I consulted, are cited in my published footnotes in the book and article. In addition, I have supplemented my past research with more recent reading and research on matters referenced in this report. In preparing to write this report and to testify in this matter, I reviewed the materials listed in the attached Exhibit B. I may rely on those documents, in addition to PUBLIC VOWS: A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE AND THE NATION, Marriage and Womens Citizenship, and certain of the sources cited therein, as well as the documents specifically cited as supportive examples in particular sections of this report, as additional support of my opinions. I have also relied on my years of experience in this field, as set out in my curriculum vitae, and on the materials listed therein.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 9. The opinions expressed in this report are my true opinions as an expert in the history of marriage. This report deals with the history of marriage as an institution created and authorized by law. Beliefs or claims about tradition in marriage cannot substitute for the actual history of the institution. 10. Marriage in Pennsylvania initially inherited and retained certain essential characteristics from the English common law. Free consent of the two parties was the hallmark of marriage, more basic even than cohabitation, in the view of the Revolutionary statesman and
legal philosopher James Wilson: The agreement of the parties, the essence of every rational contract, is indispensably required, he noted in lectures of 1792. That remains so today, while in many other respects marriage has changed significantly to meet changing social and ethical needs. 11. Since the founding of the colony by Quaker William Penn, marriage in Pennsylvania has been regarded as a civil contract embodying a couples free consent to join in long-lasting intimate and economic union. In authorizing marriage, the Commonwealth (and every other state in the U.S.) turns a couples vows into a legal status, thus protecting the couples bond and aiming moreover to advance general social and economic welfare. Throughout U.S. history, states have valued marriage as a means to benefit society. 12. Marriage in Pennsylvania has always been a civil matter under the control of legislative and judicial authorities. Valid marriage relies on state authorization, distinct from religious rites performed according to the dictates of any religious community. Religious authorities were permitted to solemnize marriages only by acting as deputies of the civil authorities, and while free to determine what qualifications they would accept for religious validation, were never permitted to determine the qualifications for entering or leaving a marriage that would be valid at law. 13. Marriage has served numerous complementary public purposes. While the private, subjective experience of being married may vary as much as individuals vary and thus resists description, historians can describe and document how the institution of marriage has been defined by law and the purposes it has served. Among these purposes are: to facilitate the states regulation of the population; to create stable households; to foster social order; to increase economic welfare and minimize public support of the indigent or vulnerable; to legitimate children; to assign providers to care for dependents; to facilitate the ownership and transmission of property; and to compose the body politic. These public purposes have long been recognized in American law. 14. Seeing multiple purposes in marriage, Pennsylvania and other states have encouraged maritally-based households as advantages to public good, whether or not minor children are present, and without regard to biological relationships of descent. Only a highly reductive interpretation would posit that marriage has a single core purpose or defining characteristic of procreation, since marriage has benefitted states and society in numerous ways.
15. The individuals ability to consent to marriage is the mark of the free person in possession of basic civil rights. This is compellingly illustrated by the history of slavery and emancipation in the United States. Slaves could not contract valid marriages. They did not have the ability the freedom to consent to the obligations and duties that marriage entailed. After the Civil War, former slaves leapt at the new chance to contract marriage. 16. Marriage rules in several other instances in the past enforced inequalities among inhabitants of the United States. The most widespread examples were states bans on marriages between whites and persons of color. These applications of marriage rules have since been judged discriminatory and have been eliminated. 17. Societal and consequent legal change over the centuries has produced new features in marriage that would have been unthinkable at the time of the founding of the United States. Three areas of fundamental change illustrate this pattern: a) Men and women were treated unequally, and asymmetrically, in marriage as defined under the eighteenth-century common law. According to the doctrine of coverture or marital unity, the married couple formed a single entity represented by the husband. The wife, upon marriage, ceded her legal and economic identity to her husband and was covered by him. A married woman could not own property, represent herself in court, sign a contract, or keep any money she earned. This inequality, seen as essential to marriage for centuries, was eliminated in response to changing values and the demands of economic modernization. Today, Pennsylvania and federal law treat both spouses equally and in gender-neutral fashion with respect to marriage, and the U.S. and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts have confirmed that such gender-neutral treatment for marital partners is constitutionally required. b) Racially-based restrictions in Pennsylvania during the 18th century colonial era and in a large majority of states for much of the nations history prohibited, voided, or criminalized marriages between whites and persons of color. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), ended the nearly 300-year history of race-based legislation on marriage. c) Divorce grounds were few in early America. Pennsylvania allowed grounds for divorce more liberal than in many states, but everywhere divorce was an adversary process, requiring one spouse to sue on the basis of the others marital fault. Over time, Pennsylvania and other states expanded grounds for divorce, and eventually enacted no-fault
divorce laws now in place, which recognize that the married couple themselves can best assess the sufficiency or breakdown of their marriage. 18. My research indicates that marriage is a capacious and complex institution. It has political, social, economic, legal, and personal components; its meanings and consequences operate in more than one arena. The institution of marriage combines public and private, status and contract, governance and liberty. Today marriage is both a fundamental right and a privileged status. 19. Marriage has long been entwined with public governance. The relation between marriage and government is visible today in both federal policy and state laws, which channel many benefits and rights of citizens through marital status. Every state gives special recognition to marriage in areas ranging from tax policy to probate rules. In Pennsylvania, hundreds of laws make distinctions based on marital status. Lawfully wedded spouses gain, for example, exemption from inheritance tax, the right to make decisions regarding the medical care of an incapacitated spouse, and rights to bring workers compensation claims on behalf of a spouse who dies or is injured at work. Federal law too embeds marital status: the General Accounting Office reported in 1996 that the corpus of federal law refers to more than 1,000 kinds of benefits, responsibilities and rights connected with marriage. 20. While marriage has changed throughout the centuries, it retains its basis in voluntary consent of two individuals to join in marital union, mutual love and support, and economic partnership. The institution has lasted over centuries because it has been flexible, capable of being adjusted by courts and legislatures in accord with changing ethical and moral standards. 21. The changes observable over time have moved marriage toward equality between the partners, gender-neutrality in marital roles, and control of marital role-definition and satisfaction by the spouses themselves rather than by state prescription. Marriage restrictions meant to discriminate among groups of citizens in their freedom to marry partners of their choice have been eliminated. 22. The exclusion from marriage of same sex couples stands at odds with the direction of historical change in marriage in the United States. Contemporary public policy assumes that marriage is a public good. Excluding some citizens from the power to marry, or
marking some as unfit on the basis of their marriage choices, does not accord with public policy regarding the benefit of marriage or the rights of citizens.
OPINIONS I. MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL INSTITUTION 23. From the founding of the United States, marriage has been authorized and regulated by civil law. Each colony, state, and territory included marriage laws and regulations in its founding legislation. 24. Colonial legislatures in America, including that of Pennsylvania, intentionally established secular authority over the making and breaking of marriages. When the United States was founded, that approach was maintained. Regulations for creating valid civil marriages were among the first laws established by the states after declaring independence. 25. Being based on voluntary mutual consent, marriage is understood to be a contract, but it is a unique contract. Because of the states essential role in defining marital eligibility, obligations and rights, marriage is also a legal status. Spouses cannot, for example, decide to abandon their obligation of mutual economic support. The couple agreeing to join in mutual intimacy and obligation cannot themselves create a valid marriage, unless their state authorizes unceremonialized (or common-law) marriage, as Pennsylvania did until recently; in that latter case, their union is marriage only because the state stipulates that it is. If a couple marries, the parties cannot terminate their legal obligations by themselves, since the state is a party to their bond. 26. Throughout the history of Pennsylvania and, indeed, all the states in the United States, whether a marriage was or was not recognized by a religion did not dictate its legality or validity. For many Americans then and now, marriage may have religious significance. Marriage ceremonies may, and often do, take a religious form; it is the civil law, nonetheless, that authorizes the validity of a marriage. State authorities have permitted religious authorities to preside over marriage ceremonies, and to decide which marriages they would recognize according to the tenets of their own faith, but religious authorities had no say in determining which marriages the state would recognize as valid. 27. At the writing of the U.S. Constitution, regulations governing marriage were considered to lie within the power of the several states, as part of their power over the health,
safety and welfare of the population. That prerogative continues to lie with the states today, subject to the requirements and protections of the Constitution. States set the terms of marriage, e.g., who can and cannot marry, who can officiate, what obligations and rights the marital agreement involves, whether it can be ended, and, if so, why and how. A marriage in Pennsylvania must be preceded by a license, issued by a county licensing officer, to be valid. The parties each must be 18 years of age, or 16 years old with parental consent, or with judicial approval if under the age of 16 years old. (23 Pa. C.S. 1304(b).) The persons marrying must not be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity. (23 Pa. C.S. 1304(e).) 28. Pennsylvanias and other states courts and legislatures repeatedly adjusted marriage terms and rules during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, sometimes to mold public policy, sometimes to conform marriage to social developments. II. MARRIAGE HAS SERVED VARIED PURPOSES IN UNITED STATES HISTORY AND TODAY 29. Societies in different historical times and places have defined marriage in many ways. Marriage is an institution of human culture; it may vary as much as human cultures do. In a given society a legitimate marriage may, for instance, be polygamous or monogamous, matrifocal or patrifocal, patrilineal or matrilineal, lifelong or temporary, open or closed to concubinage, divorce-prone or divorce-averse, and so on. The form of marriage we recognize in the United States is a particular form, not a universal one. 30. Historical evidence does not support the attempt to rank one purpose of marriage as its core purpose, in the United States. The notion that the primary or core purpose of marriage in the eyes of state government has been to provide an ideal context for the raising of children by their biological parents has no discernible basis in historical documentation. More realistically, according to the historical record, in the Anglo-American practice of four or five centuries that underlies our contemporary system, marriage was designed to be a regulatory institution that established recognizable household heads who would take economic responsibility for their dependents and would serve a broad range of purposes.
A.
Marriage Developed in Relation to Governance. 31. Historically, marriage in Western political culture has been closely intertwined
with sovereigns aim to govern their people. When monarchs in Britain and Europe fought to wrest control over marriage from ecclesiastical authorities (circa 1500-1800), they did so because the authorization of marriage was a form of power, and they used marriage as a vehicle through which to govern the population. 32. Anglo-American legal doctrine, continuing into the era of American independence, made married men into heads of their households. The head of household was legally obliged to control and support his wife and all other household dependents, whether biologically related children or relatives or others including orphans, apprentices, servants and slaves. In return, he became their public representative. Marital status and citizenship rights were thus deeply intertwined in early American history. This allotment of household authority and privilege was a major feature of public order at the time of the American Revolution, when about 80% of the thirteen colonies population were legal dependents of male household heads. (Carole Shammas, Anglo-American Household Government in Comparative Perspective, 52 WM. & MARY Q. 104, 123 (1995).) 33. Laws concerning who could marry whom, in what way, and setting the specific duties of husband and wife, formed important dimensions of states authority over their populations. Married mens full citizenship and voting rights were seen as tied to their headship of and responsibilities for their families; correspondingly, wives inferior citizenship and lack of voting rights were understood to be suited to their subordination to their husbands. 34. The rule of the male head of household over his wife, children, servants, apprentices, and slaves is now quite archaic. Today, constitutional imperatives have eliminated sex and race inequalities from laws of marriage. Yet a legacy of the sustained relation between marriage and citizenship persists, in that states grant marriage rights to certain couples and not others, and award to married couples benefits and rights not available to other pairs or to single persons. B. Marriage Creates Public Order and Economic Benefit. 35. Since the era of the American Revolution, states intended legal marriage to serve public order and society by establishing governable and economically viable households which
might hold biologically related and unrelated members. Marriage in early America organized households and figured largely in property ownership and inheritance. These are matters of civil society in which public authorities are highly interested. State governments, including that of Pennsylvania, have typically encouraged as well as regulated marriage because of its importance in creating and serving public order. 36. State governments have encouraged people to marry for economic benefit to the public, as well as to themselves. The marriage bond creates economic obligations between the mutually consenting parties and obliges them to support their dependents. In early America, marital households were formed on presumptions about a natural sexual division of labor. That is, men and women were assumed to be prepared for and good at distinctive kinds of work, both kinds being equally necessary to human sustenance, and society. (Men plowed the fields to grow the grain, and women made the bread from it, for example.) Marriage set the arrangements to foster the continuation of this sexual division of labor, especially through the doctrine of coverture, discussed in Section IV(A) below. 37. Kinship ties were not essential to the definition of family in Anglo America at the time of colonial settlement. Rather, co-residence and subjection to the same household head were the defining features of a family. (Mary Beth Norton, FOUNDING MOTHERS AND FATHERS: GENDERED POWER AND THE FORMING OF AMERICAN SOCIETY (1996), 17). Family and household were substantially synonymous, and formed the basic economic units. They organized the production of food, clothing and shelter. Early American families often included more than parents and children; more than one married pair might co-reside; grandparents or unmarried relatives might also be present, as well as unrelated apprentices or other adolescent helpers. The household served to establish a support system for all of these members, whether or not they were related by blood. When statesmen said that families were the foundation of society, they meant that households those sub-units governed by male heads were the economic and political basis of the commonwealth or state. 38. Today Pennsylvania and all state governments retain strong economic interests in marriage, though household economies no longer dictate sex-differentiated roles. Marriage obligates the spouses to support each other as well as any children born or adopted. States offer financial advantages to married couples on the premise that their households promise social
10
stability and economic benefit to the public. State governments try to minimize public expenses for indigents by enforcing the economic obligations of marriage. 39. The economic dimension of the marriage-based family took on new scope as government benefits expanded during the twentieth century. State and federal governments now channel many economic benefits through marital relationships. Federal benefits such as immigration preferences and veterans survivors benefits are extended to legally married spouses, but not to unmarried partners, even those who have contracted a civil union where it is possible. Since the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, many of these benefits can be extended to same-sex spouses validly married in a growing number of American states. (United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).) In some cases, eligibility for the benefit depends on recognition of the marriage by the couples state of residence. Pennsylvania same-sex couples who are unable to marry in their home state or whose out-of-state marriage is not recognized miss out on these federal benefits. 40. Pennsylvanias close proximity to states, including New Jersey, Maryland, New York, and Delaware, and the appeal of east-coast cities such as Boston, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., where same-sex couples can marry lawfully, risks out-migration of highly educated and mobile same-sex couples who wish to marry. There is precedent for such migration across state borders where one states public policy on marriage is preferable to that of its neighbors. Western states with community-property rules for married couples benefited from inmigration from neighboring states with common-law rules in the 1940s, when the federal income tax began to be onerous. At the time, everyone was taxed as an individual. In a community property state, a couple with a single income could split it between themselves for tax purposes and thus achieve a lower tax bracket. States jostling over this issue as residents moved across borders, and common-law states considered inaugurating a community-property regime to prevent loss of population propelled a re-thinking of federal income tax rules, and the creation of the married filing jointly category for the federal income tax. (Carolyn C. Jones, Split Income and Separate Spheres: Tax Law and Gender Roles in the 1940s, LAW AND HISTORY REVIEW, 6:2 (Fall 1988), 259-310.)
11
C.
Eligibility to Marry Has Never Turned Upon Child-Bearing Ability 41. While sexual intimacy has been expected in marriage, the ability or willingness of
married couples to produce progeny has never been necessary for valid marriage in American law. For example, in no state are women past menopause barred from marrying, nor are women divorceable after a certain age. Men or women known to be sterile have not been prevented from marrying. Inability to procreate has never been a ground for divorce, nor could a marriage be annulled for failure to beget children. (Wilson v. Wilson, 126 Pa. Super. 423, 429 (1937), [D]ivorce will not be granted for mere sterility where there is not impotence.) 42. The common law and many later state statutes, including in Pennsylvania, made sexual incapacity (impotence or other debility preventing sexual intimacy) a reason for annulment. Thus sterility or infertility was never a basis for invalidating a marriage while the inability to have sexual relations was. (Chester G. Vernier, AMERICAN FAMILY LAWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE FAMILY LAW OF THE FORTY-EIGHT AMERICAN STATES (1931, 1932, 1935).) An annulment for sexual incapacity depended upon a complaint by one of the marital partners, however, and if neither spouse objected, a non-sexual marriage remained lawful and valid in the eyes of the state. 43. Marriage rules in the United States have aimed more consistently at supporting children than producing them. Such requirements act as a critical limit on the publics responsibilities for children. Support for any child born or adopted into a family was in the past an obligation of the household head. Today, it is a responsibility shared by both parents whether married or not and regardless of whether their marriage remains intact or they divorce. 44. Through marriage, state governments have bundled legal obligations together with social rewards to encourage couples to choose committed relationships of sexual intimacy over transient relationships, whether or not these relationships will result in children. Not only today but in the long past, couples married when it was clear that no children would result. Widows and widowers remarried for love and companionship and because marriage enabled the division of labor expected to undergird a stable household. In our contemporary post-industrial economy, many divorced or widowed older adults marry when they are past childbearing age, usually for reasons of intimacy and stability. 45. The idea, raised by Justice Alito in his dissent in United States v. Windsor, that a traditional or conjugal model of marriage (linked to child-bearing) exists and differs from a
12
novel and consent-based version of marriage (unlinked to child-bearing), unnecessarily bifurcates the complexity that characterized monogamy in the Western political tradition and in the United States. Marriage has consistently bundled together several complementary purposes and functions, among which the relative salience has changed over time and amidst varying populations. 46. In the history of marriage in the United States, adults intentions for their own lives have been central to marriage whether or not children arrived. The idea that a childcentric model of marriage is traditional and differs from a novel and adult-centric version of marriage (unlinked to child-bearing) lacks historical grounding. Romantic and sexual attachment, companionship, and love between two adults who pledged their hearts and hands to one another were not in the past less intrinsic to marriage than the possibility of children. At the time of declaring independence from Britain, Americans distinguished themselves from their English contemporaries by their emphasis on the marital love-match which would reject parental oversight in choosing a romantic partner. Parallels between the consent and love on which marriage should be based and on which allegiance to the new United States should be based were very common in Revolutionary-era rhetoric. 47. In the twentieth century, sexual intimacy became increasingly separable from reproductive consequences. By the 1920s, contraception was becoming readily available to an influential portion of the American population and intentionally non-procreative marriages had become prevalent enough that social scientists coined the term companionate marriage to refer to such unions. Dr. M.M. Knight, for example, declared in the Journal of Social Hygiene in 1924 that this new term made it clear that an actual and general condition is being dealt with. He acknowledged that We cannot reestablish the old family, founded on involuntary parenthood, any more than we can set the years back or turn bullfrogs into tadpoles. (M.M. Knight, Ph.D, The Companionate and the Family, JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HYGIENE, vol. X no. 5 (May 1924), 258, 267.) 48. In the late 1930s the American Medical Association embraced contraception as a medical service; by that time or soon thereafter most states, including Pennsylvania, had legalized physicians dispensing of birth control to married couples. The Supreme Court struck down Connecticuts ban on married couples use of birth control in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).)
13
III.
DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATIONS OF MARRIAGE RULES HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST. 49. Our countrys history reveals a number of striking instances in which marriage
laws were used to discriminate among actual or prospective members of the populace, creating hierarchies of value and benefit, declaring some persons more worthy of the freedom, liberty, and privacy inherent in marriage rights than others. These laws created or enforced inequalities which seemed obvious and right to their enforcers, and were justified by their supposed naturalness, although to us today they seem patently unfair and discriminatory. A. Slaves Inability to Marry Lawfully 50. The most glaring exclusion from legal marriage in the history of the United States is in the case of slaves, who were unable to marry lawfully. Because slaves lacked basic civil rights (i.e., the right to body, liberty, and property), they were unable to give the free consent required for lawful marriage. Furthermore, a slaves overriding obligation of service to the master made carrying out the duties of marriage impossible. Slaves inability to undertake legally recognized marriages signaled their lack of basic civil rights. 51. Colonial Pennsylvania supported slavery during the 18th century (as did other middle and northern colonies). (See An Act for the Better Regulation of Negroes in this Province, 1725-26 Pa. Stat. 59.) Philadelphia merchants imported slaves from the West Indies, rather than directly from Africa. Although estimates vary widely, it appears that the number of slaves in Pennsylvania steadily increased from about 5000 in 1721 to about 30,000 in 1766. (Edgar J. McManus, BLACK BONDAGE IN THE NORTH (1973), 15, 21.) 52. Slavery in Pennsylvania was ended by a legislative act of gradual emancipation in 1780. (An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1780 Pa. Stat. 67.) Pennsylvania was the first state to enact abolition, and has been heralded for this. Many Quakers who clustered in colonial Pennsylvania opposed slavery on moral grounds, but on a material level, three Delaware counties had separated from Pennsylvania in 1776, removing the areas where slave laborers were economically important, and radically reducing the slave population in Pennsylvania. Gradual emancipation freed no slave at the time. It meant that all slaves remained so until death, and their children too remained enslaved, for their first 28 years of life. These provisions were harsher
14
than those enacted for gradual abolition by several other Northern states. Slavery was not gone from Pennsylvania until 1847. 53. Where slaveholders permitted, slave couples often wed informally, creating family units of great value to themselves. While these informal unions were honored in the slave community, they received no respect from white society. Slaveholders broke up slave unions with impunity when they sold or moved slaves. Slave marriages received no defense from state governments and none of the legal benefits of marriage; that lack of public authority was the very essence of their invalidity. 54. Slaves inability to contract valid marriages derived from their status as unfree persons, rather than from their race or color per se. After emancipation, African Americans welcomed the ability to marry as a civil right long denied to them. They saw marriage as an expression of their new gain of rights, and a recognition that they were individuals who could lawfully consent to marry a chosen partner. B. Denial of Lawful Marriage to Couples Marrying Across the Color Line. 55. Another form of race-based discrimination in marriage laws was the criminalization, nullification, and/or voiding of marriages of whites to persons of color. The first such laws were passed in the Chesapeake colonies (Virginia and Maryland), targeting white women who married negroes, mulattoes, and Indians. Such prohibitions were subsequently strengthened, and they spread to other colonies. 56. Pennsylvania criminalized such marriage (as well as adultery and fornication across the color line) in 1726, in An Act for the Better Regulating Negroes in This Province. The punishments were very severe, including enslavement for a free Negro and 7 years servitude for a white involved in such a relationship; servitude for 31 years for any child born of a white person convicted of the crime; and an extremely heavy fine for anyone performing such a marriage. (1725-26 Pa. Stat. 59.) 57. After the American Revolution, northern and southern states continued or adopted such punitive laws. As many as forty-one states and territories of the United States banned, nullified, and/or criminalized marriages across the color line for some period of their history. After slavery ended, more states than ever made intermarriage between blacks and whites void or criminal. When enacted by state legislatures and/or justified by state courts, these laws were
15
typically defended as natural and Gods plan for the races to remain separate. Numerous Western states added the categories of Indians, Chinese, and mongolians to those (black and mulatto) already prohibited from marrying whites. These exclusions exemplified states use of marriage laws to discriminate among Americans, thereby endorsing a hierarchy of relative worthiness. 58. Pennsylvania was forward-looking in repealing the criminalization of interracial marriage in 1780, in the same act that provided for the gradual abolition of slavery. (An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1780 Pa. Stat. 67.) Some statesmen recognized that such a law deeply constrained free choice of marital partner, and condemned it as prejudicial. Resistance to the recognition of blacks civil rights immediately surfaced in the state but the 1780 law stood, and encouraged antislavery in other new states. (For further discussion of the abolition of racial restrictions on marriage, see Section IV(B), below.) IV. MARRIAGE HAS CHANGED IN RESPONSE TO SOCIETAL CHANGES 59. Marriage in the United States has proved to be a flexible institution. Legislators and courts have re-shaped the institution when necessary. Like other successful civil institutions, marriage has evolved to reflect changes in ethics and in society at large. Marriage has lasted as a major feature of our society because it has been flexible, not static. Adjustments in key features of marital roles, duties, obligations, and rules of entry have preserved the appeal and value of marriage in our dynamic society. 60. Past changes in marriage were not, however, readily welcomed by all, and were often difficult for some in society to accept. Features of contemporary marriage that we take for granted such as the ability of both spouses to act as individuals while married, to marry across the color line, or to divorce for reasons of their own were fiercely resisted when first introduced and were viewed by opponents as threatening to destroy the institution of marriage itself. 61. Today the contemporary pattern of internal equality within marriage commands majority support, but that does not mean that the long-term movement toward that direction is embraced by all Americans. Rather, there has always been a vocal minority of American who found equalitarian families deeply offensive and dangerous, and wished to restore the patriarchal features of a previous day. Spokespersons today who give priority to preserving the institutions
16
incorporation and perpetuation of gender difference implicitly rely on conceptions of male and female roles that can be traced to a time of profound de jure and de facto sexual inequality. 62. The fact that the institution of marriage has been flexible has kept it vigorous and appealing. Modifications in civil marriage undertaken by courts and legislatures to adapt to societal changes can be illustrated in three areas: (a) spouses respective roles and rights; (b) racial restrictions; and (c) divorce. A. Spouses Respective Roles and Rights. 63. Marriage under the Anglo-American common law, as translated into American statutes, prescribed profound asymmetry in the respective roles and rights of husband and wife. Marriage law and practice gave very different roles and legal rights to husbands and wives. Over time, our country has moved to gender parity within the institution. 64. The common law maintained the legal fiction that a married couple was a single unit, of which the husband was the sole legal, economic, and political representative. The wifes identity was absorbed into that of her husband. This doctrine of marital unity, called coverture, reflected societys views of the marital couple as a unit naturally headed by the husband. 65. Coverture required a husband to support his wife and family, and a wife to obey her husband. He commanded her labor and property. The coverture doctrine indicated how far marriage was understood as an economic arrangement. Unlike today, when occupations are open to men and women, the two sexes then were expected to play differing though equally indispensable roles in the production of food, clothing, and shelter. Marriage sustained that differentiation and asymmetry via coverture. 66. Under coverture doctrine, the wife had no separate legal existence. A married woman could not own or dispose of property, earn money, have a debt, sue or be sued, have a domicile separate from her husbands, or enter into an enforceable agreement under her own name, because her husband had to represent her in all such acts. Neither spouse could testify for or against the other in court nor commit a tort against the other because the two were considered one person. The two partners were assigned opposite economic roles understood as complementary: the husband was bound to support and protect the wife, and the wife owed her service and labor to her husband.
17
67. Wives in New York, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina could circumvent some of the disabilities of coverture under the common law by going to equity or chancery courts. Pennsylvania did not, however, establish chancery courts. A Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice noted critically in 1820 that In no country where the blessings of the common law are felt . . . are the interests and estates of married women so entirely at the mercy of their husbands, as in Pennsylvania. (Whatson v. Mercer and another, 6 Serg. & Rawle 49, quoted in Elizabeth Bowles Warbasse, THE CHANGING LEGAL RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN 1800-1861 (1987), 46.) 68. Coverture doctrine originated in a slow-moving rural economy in old England. Its constraints began to clash with developments in American society by the 1830s. Wives began to claim their rights to hold property and wages they owned or earned. Cooperative husbands saw advantages in their wives having some economic leverage. Judges and legislators also saw advantages in keeping families supported on both spouses assets: a wifes separate property could keep a family solvent if creditors came after the husbands assets. Married women with earning potential could support their children if their husbands were profligate. 69. State authorities, including those in Pennsylvania, responded to new economic pressures and womens complaints by beginning to dismantle coverture. Such alterations were extremely divisive, to say the least. Opponents of change claimed that coverture was the essence of marriage. Alteration would be blasphemous and unnatural, opponents objected; the marriage bargain was governed by laws of Divine origin. 70. Although the marital unity doctrine had been central to what marriage meant, state authorities saw fit to change it. Married women in Pennsylvania gained the right to own and convey their own separate property by the Act of 11th April 1848 (P.L. 536). This inroad into coverture was interpreted very conservatively by Pennsylvania courts, where judges did not like to alter the ancient understanding of marriage. Nonetheless, the die was cast, and the process of unraveling coverture continued. By the Act of 3d April 1872, (P.L. 35), wives in Pennsylvania gained the right to keep their earnings also. By the end of the nineteenth century, wives in Pennsylvania could act as economic individuals, although other disabilities of coverture persisted. (See In re Hicks Estate, 7 Pa. Super. 274 (1897), detailing laws abolishing constraints on wives property, earnings, and ability to sue.) 71. Far from being static, marriage was fundamentally revised in order to take account of societal needs and spouses evolving relationships. The property basis of coverture, in
18
place for hundreds of years and understood as absolutely essential to marriage, was eliminated not only by Pennsylvania but by all the states over an extended period of time. Acting at varying paces and taking different approaches, states responded to local pressures with the result that the rules for wives and husbands roles and rights varied greatly among the several states. 72. In contrast to Pennsylvanias current refusal to credit same-sex couples lawful marriages, at no time did Pennsylvania refuse to acknowledge a marriage validly contracted in another state because that states coverture rules diverged from Pennsylvanias own. Similarly, Pennsylvania did not invalidate first-cousin marriages contracted in another state although its own marriage rules put the first-cousin relation within prohibited degrees of consanguinity. Firstcousin marriage was a source of deep regional division in the past. Accepted in much of the South and New England, it was prohibited in many other states, including Pennsylvania; yet Pennsylvania let stand a first-cousin marriage contracted in Delaware. (Schofield v. Schofield, 51 Pa. Super. 564 (1911).) 73. The unseating of coverture was a protracted process, not complete until the 1970s, because it involved revising the gender asymmetry in the marital bargain. Pennsylvanias Equal Rights Amendment of 1971 (Pennsylvania Constitution, art. I, 28) made it clear that coverture was a thing of the past. (See Henderson v. Henderson, 327 A.2d 60, 62 (Pa. 1974), [T]he law will not impose different benefits or different burdens upon the members of a society based on the fact that they may be man or woman.; George v. George, 409 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1979), Pennsylvania equal rights amendment applies to rights and duties of a man and woman after they marry.) 74. The long-enduring expectation that the husband was the provider in a marriage, and the wife his dependent, was reflected in government benefits. During the New Deal of the 1930s, new federal entitlements built upon that marital patterning. Federal programs such as the Social Security Act included special advantages for married couples, and strongly differentiated between husbands and wives entitlements. Legal challenges to this sex differentiation were brought in the 1970s, and the U.S. Supreme Court found discrimination between husband and wife in Social Security and veterans entitlements unconstitutionally discriminatory. (See Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).) Federal benefits channeled through marriage have been gender-neutral ever since then.
19
75. Of all the legal features of coverture, the husbands right of access to his wifes body lasted longest. Husbands exemption from prosecution for rape of their wives was a central legal feature of marriage under the common law. Elimination of this exemption signified a new norm of the wifes self-possession and further reframed the roles of both spouses. This development was long in arriving in all the states, beginning only in the 1970s. The Pennsylvania legislature did not eliminate the marital exception to rape until 1995 (18 Pa. C.S 3121), but had criminalized spousal sexual assault more than a decade earlier, accomplishing almost as much (18 Pa. C.S. 3128, enacted in 1984 and repealed in 1995). (See also Commonwealth v. Shoemaker, 359 Pa. Super. 111 (1986), affirming that the spousal assault law is justified by a compelling State interest in protecting [the] fundamental right of each individual to control [the] integrity of his or her own body.) 76. Courts and legislatures have changed laws governing the meaning and structure of marriage to keep it current with the time. Courts have chipped away at the inequalities inhering in the status regime of reciprocal rights and duties that originated in coverture. The duty of support, which once belonged to the husband only, is now reciprocal. Likewise, after a divorce, either spouse may seek alimony and both parties have a duty to support their children and an equal right to custody of those children. Marriage criteria have been reassessed and have been moved toward increasing freedom in marital choice, spousal parity, and gender-neutrality in marital roles. Pennsylvanias Equal Rights Amendment undergirds these moves. 77. The result has made marriage into a new status relationship, with spouses assigned gender-neutral rights and responsibilities. Couples are now free to choose how they allocate wage-earning, household, and childrearing responsibilities among themselves. Marriage has been kept relevant not by adhering to concepts from another era but by molding the institution to fit the times. By updating the terms of marriage to reflect modern notions of gender equality and individual rights, the courts have promoted marriages continuing vitality and relevance. The gender equality of marriage today would profoundly shock any American from the era of the American Revolution or the Civil War. But they would recognize in contemporary marriage the institutions foundation in two consenting parties freely choosing one another. 78. For couples who consent to marry today, marriage has been transformed from an institution rooted in gender inequality and gender-based prescribed roles to one in which the contracting parties decide on appropriate behavior toward one another, and the sex of the spouses
20
is immaterial to their legal obligations and benefits. The two partners in a marriage are still economically and in other ways bound to one another by law. But the law no longer assigns asymmetrical roles to the two spouses. 79. Today the institution of marriage is defined in law as an equal, gender-neutral partnership, with each party having the same rights and obligations to each other and to society. That evolution, along with the Supreme Courts legal recognition of the liberty of same-sex couples to be sexually intimate, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), clears the way for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples who have freely chosen to enter long-term, committed, intimate relationships. B. Racial Restrictions 80. Despite the principle of freedom of choice intrinsic to consent-based marriage, there were legal bars on cross-racial marriage choice in dozens of states for hundreds of years, long after Pennsylvania had abolished its own law penalizing cross-racial marriages. See Section III(B), above. 81. The Supreme Court first articulated the point that the right to marry was fundamental in 1923. (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); see also Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).) Yet racially-based marriage bans continued to be reinvented, with Virginia passing the most restrictive law in the nation the very next year, in 1924. 82. The California Supreme Court led the way in 1948, in holding that race-based restrictions on freedom of choice in marriage were unconstitutional. At that time, thirty states banned interracial marriages. Californias high court declared that freedom in exercising the fundamental right to marry was essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. (Perez v. Sharp, 198 P.2d 17, 18 (Cal. 1948).) 83. The eventual elimination of these laws nationwide was consistent with increasing emphasis on marriage as a fundamental right. The U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Loving v. Virginia stated very clearly that marriage was a fundamental freedom, thus affirming that freedom of choice of ones partner is basic to each persons civil right to marry. Since then, the Supreme Court has rejected as unconstitutional various state restrictions on the right to marry, including those denying the right to marry to parents who are in arrears on their child support
21
obligations, and to incarcerated felons. (See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 387 (1978), restricting statutory classifications that would attempt to interfere with the individuals freedom to make a decision as important as marriage.) 84. Today virtually no one in the United States questions the legal right of individuals to choose a marriage partner without government interference based on race. A prohibition long embedded in our laws and concepts of marriage and often defended as natural and in accord with Gods plan has been entirely eliminated. C. Divorce. 85. Legal and judicial views of divorce likewise have evolved to reflect societys view of marriage as an embodiment of choice and consent, in which the marriage partners themselves decide what is an appropriate enactment of their marital roles. 86. Colonial Pennsylvania enabled divorce from bed and board (i.e., separation) in the eighteenth century, and its assembly would have allowed absolute divorce, except that the English Parliament denied it that authority. In 1785, the new state of Pennsylvania allowed absolute divorce through the courts and by legislative petition. The allowable grounds were limited to adultery, willful desertion for four years, bigamy, and sexual incapacity. Other states allowed divorce for similarly very limited circumstances within several decades after the Revolution. Pennsylvania was in advance of other states in adding cruel and barbarous treatment by a husband of his wife to its statutory grounds for divorce in 1815, including indignities to her person so great as to cause her to leave home. A wifes cruelty to her husband became a ground much later (1854) but even there Pennsylvania was ahead of most other states. (See George Elliott Howard, A HISTORY OF MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS, vol. III (1904), 107-11.) New Yorks policy was much more limited, leading its citizens to migrate to Pennsylvania to end their marriages. A New York legislative committee commented in 1840 on how many unfortunate yoke fellows annually seek a refuge from our inexorable law, and take up a residence in moral Pennsylvania, for the sole purpose of dissolving a connection which has been productive of nothing but bitter unhappiness. (Nelson Blake, THE ROAD TO RENO: A HISTORY OF DIVORCE IN
THE UNITED STATES
(1962), 117.)
87. Divorce began as and long remained an adversary proceeding, meaning that the petitioning spouse had to show that the other, the accused spouse, had broken the social and legal
22
contract embodied in marriage as set by the state. When divorce was granted, the guilty partys fault was a fault against the state, as well as against his or her spouse. 88. Like other rules concerning marriage, nineteenth-century divorce laws presupposed different and asymmetrical marital roles for husband and wife, and as evident in Pennsylvania, divorce grounds for each could differ. For instance, desertion by either spouse was a ground for divorce, but failure to provide was a breach that only the husband could commit. In order to succeed, a wife seeking divorce had to show that she had been a model of obedience and service to her husband. Under the common law fathers were deemed the guardians of the children of a marriage. When courts (in the nineteenth century) began to allow maternal custody of children under seven, judges insisted upon stringent standards of maternal fitness for the task. 89. Over time, grounds for divorce were expanded. In Pennsylvania, for example, two years or more imprisonment for a felony, and insanity, became grounds for divorce. (Act of May 2, 1929; Act of September 22, 1972.) Other states went farther, giving judges wide latitude, but that direction of change was hotly contested by critics who were sure that liberalized grounds for divorce would undermine the marital compact entirely. 90. The fault regime continued even as divorce became more frequent in the twentieth century. This led to cursory fact-finding in divorce cases, and even to collusion between spouses and their lawyers to gain a divorce when both spouses agreed the marriage had reached irremediable breakdown without matching their states grounds for divorce. 91. To accord with new realities and to short circuit the temptation to legal fraud under the fault regime, states introduced no-fault divorce, in the 1970s. This meant removal of consideration of marital fault from the grounds for divorce, awards of spousal support, and division of property. Pennsylvania enacted its form of no-fault divorce in 1980, thus embracing the reform as a means of dealing honestly with marital breakdowns, achieving greater equality between men and women within marriage, and advancing further the notion of consent and choice as to ones spouse. (See Perlberger v. Perlberger, 426 Pa. Super. 245 (1993), Purpose of enacting no-fault divorce provisions in addition to traditional fault provisions was to provide for dissolution of marriage in manner which would keep pace with contemporary social realities.) By 1980, almost every state had adopted some form of no-fault divorce, enabling couples who found themselves incompatible to end their marriages.
23
92. The liberalization of divorce that took place in the twentieth century vastly changed the institution of marriage as it had been known and experienced in earlier centuries. Courts today still retain a strong role in the ending of marriages (since post-divorce terms of support must have court approval to be valid), but the move to no-fault divorce has reflected a major shift toward enabling the partners to a marriage to set their own marriage goals and to determine how well those goals are being met. This sweeping change reflects contemporary views that continuing consent to marriage is essential. 93. In divorce as in other aspects of family law today, gender neutrality in roles and decision-making is the premise. Both parents of dependent children have responsibility for economic support and for childrearing; gender neutrality is the judicial starting point for postdivorce arrangements. In Pennsylvania, the presumption that a father, solely because of his sex and irrespective of the relative circumstances and capabilities of the parents, has the principal burden of financially supporting minor children was invalidated by the Equal Rights Amendment. (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536 (1974).) So too in alimony, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1979. (Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979).) And with respect to government entitlements, by 1988 welfare reforms placed responsibility for childrens support on both parents. V. MARRIAGE TODAY 94. Marriage has evolved into a civil institution through which the state formally recognizes and ennobles individuals choices to enter into long-term, committed, intimate relationships. In Pennsylvania as elsewhere, marital relationships are founded on the free choice of the parties and their continuing mutual consent to stay together. 95. The institution of marriage has proved to be resilient rather than static during the course of American history. Some alterations in it have resulted from statutory responses to economic and social change, while other important changes in marriage have resulted from judicial recognition that state strictures must not infringe the fundamental right to marry. In the past half-century, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that this basic civil right cannot be constrained by restrictions on marriage partner (Loving v. Virginia), by level of compliance with child support orders (Zablocki v. Redhail) or even by imprisonment (Turner v. Safley), and
24
that marriage partners have a constitutional right to be treated equally regardless of gender within, or at the ending of, their marriage (Orr v. Orr). 96. Marriage rules have changed over the centuries to the extent that features of marriage that once seemed essential and indispensable including coverture, racial barriers to choice of partner, and state-delimited restrictions on divorce have been eliminated. Marriage remains a vigorous institution today, strengthened, not diminished, by these changes. Marriage persists as a public institution closely tied to the public good and simultaneously a private relationship that serves and protects the two people who enter into it. 97. In order to reflect contemporary views of gender equality and to provide fundamental fairness to marriage partners, Pennsylvania, along with other states, has eliminated gender-based rules and distinctions relating to marriage. Today a husband and wife are equal partners in a marital relationship, and, as such, should be treated equally under the law with respect to that relationship. (Hopkins v. Blanco, 457 Pa. 90, 93 (1974).) Pennsylvania marriage law treats men and women without regard to sex and sex-role stereotypes except in the statutory requirement that men may marry only women and women may marry only men. This gender-based requirement is out of step with the gender-neutral approach of contemporary marriage law. 98. The defendants Responses to Interrogatories found tradition voiced as a compelling and legitimate state interest, in the legislative history of the challenged sections of the Pennsylvania Marriage Statute. The history of marriage shows that it is an evolving institution. Had tradition in marriage always held, Pennsylvania would still observe coverture and married women would have no legal or economic individuality, divorce would be available only for cause, and most of the United States would prohibit and criminalize marriage between whites and persons of color. The makeup of tradition is subject to interpretation. 99. The right to marry and the free choice of marriage partner are profound exercises of the individual liberty central to the American polity and way of life. Legal allowance for couples of the same sex to marry would extend this tradition, and carry on the long history of revisions in the regulation of marriage meant to sustain the vitality and contemporaneity of the institution. Enabling couples of the same sex to enjoy marriage equality would be consistent with the ongoing historical trend. That marriage remains a vital and relevant institution testifies to the
25
laws ability to recognize the need for change, rather than adhere rigidly to values or practices of earlier times.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Executed on February 14, 2014. By:
Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D.
26

Exhibit A
NANCY F. COTT ncott@fas.harvard.edu Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History, Harvard University, and Carl and Lily Pforzheimer Foundation Director of the Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Department of History 35 Quincy St. Harvard University Cambridge MA 02138 tel. 617-495-3085
Schlesinger Library 10 Garden St. Cambridge MA 02138 tel. 617-495-8647
EDUCATION: Ph.D. 1974, in History of American Civilization, Brandeis University. M.A. 1969, in History of American Civilization, Brandeis University. B.A. l967, magna cum laude in History, Cornell University. TEACHING APPOINTMENTS: Harvard University: Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History, and Carl and Lily Pforzheimer Foundation Director of the Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, 2002Yale University: Assistant Professor of History and American Studies, 1975-79; Associate Professor, 1979-86; Professor, 1986-90; Chair of Women's Studies Program, 1980-1987, 1992-93; Chair of American Studies Program, 1994-97; Stanley Woodward Professor of History and American Studies, 1990-2000; William Clyde DeVane Professor, spring 1998; Sterling Professor of History and American Studies, 2001. Boston Public Library, NEH Learning Library Program, Lecturer, 1975. Wellesley College: Instructor of History, part-time, 1973-74. Clark University: Instructor of History, part-time, 1972. Wheaton College: Instructor of History, part-time, 1971. HONORS, FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS: Mary L. Cornille Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Humanities, Wellesley College, 2012. American Academy of Arts & Sciences elected member, 2008Centre d'etudes nord-americaines, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris: French-American Foundation Chair, 2003-04. Fulbright Lectureship Grant (Japan-U.S. Educational Commission), July 2001. Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford CA, 1998-99, 2008-09. Radcliffe College Alumnae Association Graduate Society Medal, 1997. Visiting Research Scholar, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College, 1991, 1997. National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, 1993-94. Liberal Arts Fellowship in Law, Harvard Law School, 1993-94, l978-79. A. Whitney Griswold grant (Yale Univ.), 1984, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993, 2000. American Council of Learned Societies Grant-in-Aid, 1988. Charles Warren Center Fellowship, Harvard University, l985. John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship, l985. Fellow, Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University, l983-84, 1987. Radcliffe Research Scholarship, Spring l982. Rockefeller Foundation Humanities Fellowship, l978-79. Phi Beta Kappa, l966; Phi Kappa Phi, l967. PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Harvard U. Press, 2000). No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States, editor (Oxford U. Press, 2000).

2
Root of Bitterness: Documents of the Social History of American Women, revised edition, coeditor with Jeanne Boydston, Ann Braude, Lori D. Ginzberg, and Molly Ladd-Taylor, Northeastern U. Press, 1996) A Woman Making History: Mary Ritter Beard Through Her Letters (Yale U. Press, 1991). The Grounding of Modern Feminism (Yale U. Press., 1987). A Heritage of Her Own: Towards a New Social History of American Women, coeditor with E. H. Pleck (Simon & Schuster, l979). The Bonds of Womanhood: 'Woman's Sphere' in New England, l780-l835 (Yale U. Press, 1977; 2d ed. with new preface, 1997). Root of Bitterness: Documents of the Social History of American Women (E.P.Dutton, l972) PUBLICATIONS: ARTICLES "Revisiting the Transatlantic 1920s: Vincent Sheean vs. Malcolm Cowley," American Historical Review 118 (February 2013), 46-75. "The Public Stake," in Just Marriage, Mary Lynn Shanley et al., (NY, Oxford U Press, 2004), 33-36. Public Emblem, Private Realm: Family and Polity in the United States, in Democratic Vistas, ed. Anthony Kronman, (New Haven, Yale U. Press, 2004). Womens Rights Talk, American Studies in Scandinavia 32:2 (2000), 18-29. "Marriage and Women's Citizenship in the United States, 1830-1934," American Historical Review 103:5 (Dec. 1998), 1440-74. "Justice for All? Marriage and Deprivation of Citizenship in the United States," in Justice and Injustice, Amherst Series in Law, Jurisprudence & Social Thought, ed. Austin Sarat (Ann Arbor, U. Mich, 1996). "'Giving Character to Our Whole Civil Polity': Marriage and State Authority in the Late Nineteenth Century," in U.S. History as Women's History, ed. Linda Kerber et al. (Chapel Hill, U.N.C., 1995). "Early Twentieth-Century Feminism in Political Context: A Comparative Look at Germany and the United States," in Suffrage & Beyond, ed. Caroline Daley and Melanie Nolan (Auckland, NZ, Auckland U.P., 1994). "The Modern Woman of the 1920s, American Style," in La Storia Delle Donne, vol. V, Francoise Thebaud, ed., G. Laterza & Figli (Italy), 1992 (also French, Dutch, Spanish and U.S. editions). "Two Beards: Coauthorship and the Concept of Civilization," American Quarterly, 42:2 (June 1990). "Historical Perspectives: The Equal Rights Amendment in the 1920s," in Conflicts in Feminism, ed. Marianne Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Keller (N.Y., Routledge, 1990). "On Men's History and Women's History," in Meanings for Manhood: Constructions of Masculinity in Victorian America, ed. Mark Carnes and Clyde Griffen (Chicago, U. Chicago Press, 1990). "Across the Great Divide: Women's Politics Before and After 1920," in Women, Politics, and Change, ed. Louise Tilly and Patricia Gurin (N.Y.,Russell Sage Foundation, 1990); revised and reprinted in One Woman, One Vote: Rediscovering the Woman Suffrage Movement, ed. M. Wheeler (NewSage, 1995). "What's in a Name? The Limits of Social Feminism or, Expanding the Vocabulary of Women's History," Journal of American History, 76:3 (December 1989). "The South and the Nation in the History of Women's Rights," in A New Perspective: Southern Women's Cultural History from the Civil War to Civil Rights, ed. Priscilla C. Little and Robert C. Vaughan (Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, Charlottesville, 1989). "Beyond Roles, Beyond Spheres: Thinking about Gender in the Early Republic," with Linda Kerber et al., William and Mary Q., 3d ser., 46 (July 1989). "Women's Rights: Unspeakable Issues in the Constitution," The Yale Review, 77:3 (Spring 1988), 382-96. "Feminist Theory and Feminist Movements: The Past Before Us," in What is Feminism? ed. Juliet Mitchell and Ann Oakley (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, l986, and N.Y., Pantheon, 1986). "Feminist Politics in the l920s: The National Woman's Party," Journal of American History, 71 (June 1984). "Passionlessness: An Interpretation of Anglo-American Sexual Ideology, 1790-l840," Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 4 (1978).

3
"Notes Toward an Interpretation of Antebellum Childrearing," The Psychohistory Review 6 (Spring 1978). "Eighteenth-Century Family and Social Life Revealed in Massachusetts Divorce Records," Journal of Social History, 10 (Fall l976). "Divorce and the Changing Status of Women in 18th-Century Massachusetts," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 33 (October 1976). "Young Women in the Second Great Awakening in New England," Feminist Studies, 3 (Fall 1975). PUBLICATIONS: MISCELLANY Introduction, Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-75, ed. Barbara Love (U. of Illinois Press, 2006). "Afterword," Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North America, ed. Ann Laura Stoler, (Duke Univ. Press, 2006). "Janet Flanner," in Notable American Women: Completing the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 2005). Co-editor with Drew Gilpin Faust, The Magazine of History, special issue on Gender History, March 2004. "Considering the State of U.S. Women's History," with others, Journal of Women's History 15:1 (2003). "Response," to "Books in Review: Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation ," The Good Society, 11:3 (2002), 88-90. The Great Demand, in Days of Destiny, ed. James MacPherson and Alan Brinkley, Society of American Historians (Agincourt Press, 2001). Introduction to Jane Leveys Imagining the Postwar Family, Journal of Womens History, Fall 2001. "Mary Ritter Beard," in American National Biography (Oxford U. Press, 1999). "Challenging Boundaries: Introductory Remarks," Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 9 (1997). "A Conversation with Eric Foner," culturefront 4:3 (Winter 1995-96). "Bonnie and Clyde," in Past Imperfect: History and the Movies, ed. Mark Carnes (N.Y., Henry Holt, 1995). "Privacy"; "Domesticity"; "Mary Ritter Beard"; in A Companion to American Thought, ed. Richard Wightman Fox and James Kloppenberg (Cambridge, Basil Blackwell, 1995). "Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard," The Reader's Companion to American History, ed. Eric Foner and John Garraty, 1991. "Comment on Karen Offen's 'Defining Feminism: A Comparative Historical Approach,'" Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 15:11 (1989). Editorial, Special issue of Women's Studies Quarterly, XVI:1/2 Spring/(Summer 1988), "Teaching the New Women's History." Introduction to A New England Girlhood by Lucy Larcom (Boston, Northeastern U. Press, 1985). "Women as Law Clerks: Memoir of Catherine G. Waugh," in The Female Autograph, New York Literary Forum, 12-13 (l984). Afterword to Sarah Eisenstein, Bread and Roses, ed. Harold Benenson (London, RKP, 1983). "Mary Ritter Beard," in Notable American Women: The Modern Period (1980). PUBLICATIONS: REVIEW ESSAYS "Adversarial Invention," American Quarterly, 47:2 (June 1995). "Patriarchy in America is Different," American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1987:4 (Fall 1987). "Women and the Ballot," Reviews in American History, 15:2 (June 1987). "The House of Feminism," New York Review of Books, 30 (March 17, 1983). "The Confederate Elite in Crisis: A Woman's View," The Yale Review, 71 (Autumn 1981). "Liberation Movements in Two Eras," American Quarterly, 32 (Spring 1980). "Abortion, Birth Control, and Public Policy," The Yale Review, 67 (Summer 1978).

4
PUBLICATIONS: REVIEWS in American Historical Review, American Prospect, Boston Globe, Business History Review, Intellectual History Newsletter, International Labor and Workingclass History, Journal of American History, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, New Mexico Historical Review, New York Times Book Review, Pacific Studies, Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, The Times Literary Supplement, Women's History Review, and The Yale Review. PUBLICATIONS: EDITORIAL PROJECTS General editor, The Young Oxford History of Women in the United States, 11 volumes, Oxford University Press, 1994. Editor, History of Women in the United States, 20 volumes (article reprint series), K.G. Saur Publishing Co., 1993-94. Guest Editor, special issue of Women's Studies Quarterly, XVI:1/2 (Spring/Summer 1988), on "Teaching the New Women's History." OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: GRANT PROJECTS: Dissertation seminar in gender history for graduate students, Mellon Foundation, 2002. Steering Committee, Ford Foundation Project on Women and Gender in the Curriculum in Newly-Coeducational Institutions, 1985-90. Principal Investigator, National Endowment for the Humanities Implementation Grant, "Strengthening Women's Studies at Yale," l983-86. Principal investigator, National Endowment for the Humanities Pilot Grant to Women's Studies, Yale University, l98l. ACADEMIC JOURNALS AND REFERENCE WORKS: American National Biography, senior editor, 1989-98. American Quarterly, editorial board, l977-l980. Feminist Studies, associate editor, l977-85, editorial consultant, 1985-97. Gender and History, advisory board, 1987-92; editorial collective, 1993-96. Journal of American History, editorial board, 1996-99. Journal of Social History, editorial board, l978-. Journal of Women's History, editorial board, 1987-98. Notable American Women, volume 5, advisory board, 1999-04. Orim: A Jewish Journal at Yale, editorial board, l984-88. The Readers' Encyclopedia of American History, advisory board, 1989-91. Reviews in American History, editorial board, 1981-85. Women's Studies Quarterly, editorial board, 1981-94. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, advisory board, 1988-2001. The Yale Review, editorial board, 1980-88, 1991-99. SERVICE IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Organization of American Historians, Vice President-Elect, 2013 American Historical Association, delegate to American Council of Learned Societies, 2008-12 Society of American Historians, Executive Board, 2006Elected member: American Antiquarian Society, Massachusetts Historical Society, Society of American Historians. Organization of American Historians: Merle Curti Prize Committee, 2008; Binkley-Stephenson Prize Committee, 1987-1990 (chair, 1988); elected member of Nominating Committee, 1993-95 (Chair, 199495); elected member of Executive Board, 1997-2000; OAH Lecturer, 1997-.

5
Berkshire Conference of Women Historians: Co-Chair, Eighth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women (1990). American Studies Association: Nominating Committee, l98l-84; National Council, 1987-90; American Quarterly Review Committee, 1989. ACADEMIC ADVISORY BOARDS: The Museum of Women/The Leadership Center, N.Y. State, (chair of historians advisory board) 2000-. Princeton University Program in Women's Studies, l985-2001. Project on Gender in Context, Mt. Holyoke College, l982-83. The Correspondence of Lydia Maria Child, 1977-80. Schlesinger Library on the History of Women, Radcliffe College, 1977-80. AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA PROJECTS: Advisory Board, 888 Film Project, Left on Pearl, 2006-12. Historical Advisory Board, "Makers: Women Who Make America," 2007-2012. Advisory Board, Blueberry Hill Productions Ten Stories Project, 2005WGBH documentary proposal on the History of Marriage in America, Principal consultant, 2002. Institute on the Arts and Civic Dialogue, Affiliated Scholar, American Repertory Theatre and W.E.B. DuBois Institute, summer 1999. Margaret Sanger film project (by Bruce Alfred), Consultant, 1994-96, "One Woman, One Vote: The Struggle for Woman Suffrage in the U. S.," Advisory Board, Educational Film Center, 1991-95. "The American Experience," Advisory Board, WBGH-TV, Boston, MA, 1986-90. Consultant, "Mary Silliman's War," film by Steven Schechter, 1987. Consultant, "Lowell Fever," film by Made in U.S.A., Inc. 1985-87. "Legacies: Family History in Sound," radio course on the history of women and the family in the U.S., Advisory Board, l984-86. Connecticut Public Radio series, "Choices"/Everyday History, Radio Programs for Children 8 to 12," Consultant, 1982-83. Dan Klugherz (Film) Productions, N.Y., Consultant, l98l-82. Stanton Project on Films on Women in American History, Advisory Board, 1974-77. PRIZE AND FELLOWSHIP SELECTION COMMITTEES: Merle Curti Prize, Organization of American Historians, 2008. Mark Lynton History Book Prize, 2002. Bunting Institute Fellowship Program, Radcliffe College, 1982, 1996. American Antiquarian Society Fellowships, 1991, 1992, 1994. Governors' Prize, Yale University Press, 1990. American Council of Learned Societies, Fellowships for Recent Recipients of the Ph.D., 1987, 1988, 1990. Bancroft Prize (Columbia University), 1985. Radcliffe Research Scholars Program, 1982. Hamilton Prize, Women and Culture Series, U. Michigan Press, 1981. CONSULTANT/EVALUATOR/REVIEW COMMITTEE (selected list): Johns Hopkins University, History Department, February 2011. Wellesley College, Wellesley Centers for Women, June 2010. University of Helsinki, city center campus, 2005. Univ. of California at Santa Barbara, Womens Studies Program, February 2002.

6
National Endowment for the Humanities, fellowships for university teachers, 1998; media projects, 2001. History Department, University of Oregon, 1999. Woodrow Wilson Center Fellowships, 1991, 1992, 1994. State of Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 1990. National Humanities Center Fellowships, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994. "Foundations of American Citizenship," curriculum project, Council of Chief State School Officers, 1987. Connecticut Humanities Council, 1986. Rockefeller Foundation Gender Roles Fellowships Program, 1985. Radcliffe Research Scholars, l983. Working Women's History Project, 9 to 5, Organization for Women Office Workers, 1981. Rockefeller Foundation Humanities Fellowships, l980. ACADEMIC LECTURES, PAPERS, COMMENTS DELIVERED (selected list): "What Was Sexual Modernism?" Yale Research Initiative on the History of Sexualities, Yale University, September 2013. "How History Matters to Same-Sex Marriage Rights," College of Charleston, Charleston SC, September 2013. "Resignifying the Sexual Revolution," invited lecture at Rothermere American Institute, University of Oxford, U.K. May 2013. Keynote panelist, Transnational Perspectives on Gay Marriage international conference co-sponsored by Brandeis University and the Goethe Institut, Boston, April 2013. "Historians Go to Court: Marriage on Trial," Keynote, Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession, Organization of American Historians annual conference, San Francisco, April 2013. Comment, "Women and Social Movements International," Organization of American Historians annual conference, San Francisco, April 2013. "What was Sexual Modernism," U.C.L.A History Department invited talk, March 2013. "Modern Marriage: Crisis Terminable and Interminable," Mary Cornille Lecture at the Newhouse Humanities Center, Wellesley College, November 2012. "Marriage Crisis in the Jazz Age", National Women's History Museum and Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, D.C. October 2012. "Marriage in the Courts," Ronald and Kristine Erickson Legal History Lecture, U. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, October 2012. "The Past, Present, and Future of Feminism," keynote for the 19th annual Susan B. Anthony Institute Interdisciplinary Graduate Conference at the Univ. of Rochester, March, 2012. "The History of Marriage on Trial," Margaret Morrison Distinguished Lecture in Womens History, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA March 2011. "Why History Matters: Same-Sex Marriage," U.C.L.A. History Department special event, February 2011. "The History of Marriage on Trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger," American Association of Law Schools conference, San Francisco, January 2011. "Marriage on Trial," Gender and Women's Studies Program, University of Kentucky, December 2010. "The Craft of History and the Constitution: The Role of Historians as Expert Witnesses in Perry v. Schwarzenegger," Yale Law School, October 21, 2010. Keynote, "Embedded Bodies: Reproductive Justice in Social Context," Harvard Law School, Oct. 2010. "The History of Marriage on Trial," University of California at Berkeley, History Dept., March 2010. Panelist, "State of the Field: History of Women/Gender/Sexuality, Organization of American Historians annual meeting, April 2010. "Born Modern," Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, October 2008. Revisiting the Jazz Age, John OSullivan Memorial Lecture, Florida Atlantic U., November, 2007.

7
Recovering the Interwar Generation, Modern America Workshop, Princeton University, April 2007; University of Chicago Social History Workshop, May 2007. The Reproduction of Gender, graduate student conference on Nineteenth-Century Reproduction,Temple University, February 2007. Women in the Rubble, Newcombe Institute Summit on Educating Women for a World in Crisis, New Orleans, LA, February 2007. Marriage and Citizenship in the History of the United States, Hall Center for the Humanities, University of Kansas, November 2006. Women of Happenstance, First Ladies Conference, McKinley Homestead, Canton, OH, Apr 2006. Revisiting the 1920s Generation, Rothermere American Institute, Oxford Univ., January 2006. "Boundaries and Blinders in History: Revisiting the 1920s Generation," keynote address, Western Association of Women Historians annual meeting, Phoenix, AZ, April 2005. Panelist, "The Political Spectrum of Same-Sex Marriage," conference on Breaking with Tradition: New Frontiers for Same-Sex Marriage, Yale Law School, March 2005. "Gender History and Generations," Women's History Month address, Rutgers-Camden Law School, Camden NJ, March 2005. "Collecting Women's History at the Schlesinger Library," Society of American Archivists annual meeting, August 2004. Colloquium on George Chauncey's Gay New York, Dec. 2003, Ecole Normale Superieur, Paris. Closing remarks, Library of Congress symposium, "Resourceful Women," June 19-20, 2003. "Women, Men, and Modern Marriage," Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, November 2003. Whats Love Got to Do with It? Marriage as a Public Institution in the United States, Fairleigh Dickinson University, March, 2003. Comment, Revisiting Domesticity: Symbolic Economies of Sex and Gender, American Historical Assoc. annual meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2003. Gendering Colonial America, Making Womens History Colonial: A Roundtable, Berkshire Conference on Womens History, Storrs, CT, June 2002. Comment, panel on Race and Family in Wartime America: Illegitimacy, Immigration, and the Church, Organization of Amer. Hist. annual meeting, Washington, D.C. April 2002. New Directions in Womens History after 9/11, Brandeis University, March 2002. The Efficacy of Womens History, Bridgewater State University, March 2002. Marriage and the Nation, Harvard Law School Legal History Forum, October 2001. The Family, Citizenship, and Democracy in the United States, University of Tokyo, Japan, July 2001. Women as Workers, Citizens, and Activists in the Mid-Twentieth-Century U. S. four- seminar series, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan, July 2001. Grooming Citizens: Marriage in the Political History of the United States, Kyoto American Studies Seminar, Kyoto, Japan, July 2001. Public Sanctity for a Private Realm: The Family, the Rhetoric of Democracy, and Constitutional Values in the U.S., Bacon Lecture on the Constitution, Boston Univ., May 2001. Democracy and the Family, Yale Tercentennial Series Democratic Vistas, April 2001. Marriage and the Nation: Historical Perspectives, Northeastern University Feminist Studies Colloquium, March 2001. Public Vows: On Marriage and the Nation in the Early Twentieth-Century U.S., Center for Historical Study, U. Maryland, College Park, October 2000. Marriage Revised and Revived, Associated Yale Alumni faculty lecture, May, 2000. Comment, session on The Idea of Marriage: The British Atlantic Context, International Seminar on the History of the Atlantic World, 1500-1800, Harvard Univ., August 2000. Reflections on Women and/in Authority, Women, Justice, and Authority: A Working Conference, Yale Law School, April 28, 2000.

8
Grooming Citizens: Marriage and the Civic Order in the United States, In the Company of Scholars Lecture Series, Yale University Graduate School, April 2000. Public Vows: Marriage as a Public Institution, History Department, Stanford University, January 2000. "An Archaeology of American Monogamy," History Department, Northwestern Univ., October 1999. "The Modern Architecture of Marriage," Gender and Policy Workshop, Department of Economic History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, October 1999. "Women's Rights Talk," conference on "Rights--Civil, Human, and Natural," University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, October 1999. Comment, "Making and Breaking Marriages: Reconsidering American Families through the Law, Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, June 1999. "Marriage Fraud in the Making of Immigration Restriction in the U.S." Center for Cultural Studies, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz, May 1999. Panel discussant, women and citizenship, Univ. of California, Berkeley, October 1998. "An Approach to Citizenship through Gender History," Univ. of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Feb.1999. "Marriage and Citizenship," Legal Theory Workshop, Yale Law School, October 1998. Comment, "Public Policy and Marriage," American Society for Legal History, Seattle, WA, Oct. 1998. Thinking about Citizenship and Nationality through Women's History," keynote address, Australian Historical Association, Sydney, Australia, July 1998. "Race, Blood, and Citizenship: A Gendered Perspective on U.S. Immigration Restriction, 1895-1917," International Federation for Research in Women's History conference, Melbourne, Australia, June 1998. Introduction, Conference on Sexual Harassment Law, Yale Law School, February 1998. "Marriage and Public Policy: The Politicization of Marriage in the 1850s," Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College, May 1997. Comment, "Association-Building in America," Organization of American Historians annual meeting, San Francisco, April 1997. "Writing American Women's History: Retrospect on Nineteenth Century Domesticity," Clarion University, Clarion, Pa., April 1997. "Against Equality: Mary Ritter Beard and Feminism," DePauw University, March 1997. "Marriage and Women's Citizenship: A Historical Excursion," N.Y.U. Law School, March 1997. Discussant, "One Woman, One Vote: Painting a 70-year Battle on a 2-hour TV Canvas," Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, June 1996, U.N.C. Chair, "International Feminism, 1840-1945," American Historical Association annual meeting, January 1996, Atlanta, Ga. The Gender of Citizenship and the 19th Amendment," keynote address, University of Texas 8th Biennial Graduate Student Historical Symposium, Austin, Oct.1995; Women's History Week lecture, Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg Mass., March 1996. "Effects of the 19th Amendment," Delaware Heritage Commission Conference on the 75th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment, Delaware State Univ., November, 1995. "Forming the Body Politic: Gender, Race, and Citizenship Traditions in the U.S., "John Dewey Lecture in the Philosophy of Law, Harvard Law School, October 1994; Jane Ruby Humanities Fund Lecture, Wheaton College, March 1995. "The Marriage Knot: Gender, Race and Citizenship Policy in the U.S., 1855-1934," UCLA Center for the Study of Women, October 1994. Chair and comment, "Debating Democracy in the 19th Century," annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians, Atlanta, GA, April 1994. "Justice for All? Marriage, Race, and Deprivation of Citizenship in the Early 20th-Century U.S.," Keck Lecture, Amherst College, February 1994; Harvard University, February 1994. "Marriage, Gender, and Public Order," Symposium of the Association for Women's History, Amsterdam, Holland, November 1993.

9
"Early Education of Women," symposium on Uncovering Women's History in Museums and Archives, Litchfield (CT) Historical Society, October 1993. "Early 20th-century Feminism in Germany and the U.S. Compared," Suffrage Centenary Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, August 1993. "Reviewing the Private and the Public through Women's History," Conference for 20 Years of the Edith Kreeger Wolf Distinguished Visiting Professorship, Northwestern Univ., April 1993. "Marriage as/and Public Policy in the Late Nineteenth-Century U.S.," annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians, Anaheim, CA, ; Northwestern University History Department, Apr1993. "Against Equality: Mary Ritter Beard and Feminism," Conference on the 200th Anniversary of Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women, Sussex, England, Dec. 1992. "'Enlightenment Respecting Half the Human Race': Mary Ritter Beard and Women's History," Sophia Smith Collection Semi-Centennial, September 1992. "Women's History in Contemporary Perspective," Harvard University Women's History Week, Mar 1992. "Educating Women in the U.S.," Founders Day lecture, Mary Baldwin College, October 1991. "Feminism in the U.S. in the Early 20th Century in Comparative Perspective," German Association for American Studies annual conference, Muenster, Germany, May 1991. Comment, "Women and American Political Identity," conference on Political Identity in American Thought, Yale Univ., April 1991. "Slavery, Race, and the History of Women's Rights in the U.S.," Trenton State College, NJ, March 1991. Comment, "Contextualizing Feminism," annual meeting of the American Historical Association, New York City, December 1990. "The Political Isn't Personal: Mary Ritter Beard's View of Women's History," Center for American Culture Studies, Columbia U., October 1990. "Mary Ritter Beard and Women's History," N.Y. Public Library, Sept. 1989. Chair, "Power in the Early Twentieth Century," Organization of American Historians annual meeting, St. Louis, April 1989. "What's in a Name?: The Limits of Social Feminism," Boston U., Jan. 1989; Brandeis U., Sept. 1989. Panelist, "Feminist Theory," 10th Anniversary Celebration of the Women's Studies Program at Brandeis U., November 1988. "Reconsidering Individualism and 'Nature Herself' in the Era of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism," Harvard U. History Department, April 1988. Panelist, "Individualism," N. Y. U. Humanities Center, March 1988. Afterword, "Masculinity in Victorian America," Barnard College, Columbia U., January 1988. Panelist, "Beyond Roles, Beyond Spheres: Thinking about Gender in the Early Republic," U. of Pennsylvania, December 1987. Chair, "Women in American Constitutional History at the Bicentennial," Annual Meeting of the American Hist. Assoc., Washington, D.C., December 1987. "Women's Rights: Unspeakable Issues in the Constitution," Association of Yale Alumni Faculty Seminar, September 1987, New Haven, CT; Brandeis U., March 1988; Second Annual Lowell Conference on Women's History, Lowell, MA, March 1988; Conference on the Constitution as Historical and Living Document, Duchess County Community College, April 1988; Richardson American Studies Lecture, Georgetown U., April 1988. "How Weird Was Beard? Mary Ritter Beard and American Feminism," Seventh Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, June 1987, Wellesley MA. "The Birth of Feminism," Women's Studies Program, Cornell U., March 1987. "Feminism and Women's Political Participation in the Early 20th Century," Conference on Women and Citizenship, Women Historians of the Midwest, St. Paul, MN, March 1987. "The Power of Communalism: Reflections through Women's History," Historic Communal Societies Conference, October 1986.

10
Chair, "Women in the 1950s: An Interdisciplinary Exploration," Organization of American Historians annual meeting, N.Y., April 1986. "Feminism in the 1920s," Boston Area Feminist Colloquium, Northeastern U., January 1986. "History of Feminism," Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C., May 1985. "Feminist Theory and Feminist Movements: The Past Before Us," Women's History Week, Harvard U., March 1985. "Problems of Feminism in the l920s: the Political Environment," Women's History Series, New York U., February 1985; American Studies Lecture, Smith College, March 1985; Harvard Law School Faculty Colloquium, May 1985. "Has Modern Woman Disrupted the Home? 1920s Answers," Wesleyan Center for the Humanities, October 1984. "Feminism and Women in Professional Occupations in the 1920s," American Studies lecture, Amherst College, February 1984. "Feminism in Transition, 1910-1930," Sixth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, June 1984, Northampton, MA. Comment, "Nineteenth-Century Gender Conventions," Smith-Smithsonian Conference on Conventions of Gender, February 1984. "Definitions of Feminism in the Early Twentieth-Century United States," Whitney Humanities Center, Yale U., September 1983. "Challenging Myths of Victorian Womanhood," American Psychiatric Association Convention, New York City, May 1983. "Women's History and Feminism," Phi Beta Kappa Lecture, Sweet Briar College, February 1983; Sarah Lawrence College, March l983. "Reappraising the History of Feminism in the 1920s," American Studies Series, Boston College, February 1983; History Dept. Series, U. of Virginia, February l983; Hamilton College, April 1983; Trinity College, April 1983. "The Hundred Fragments: Feminism, the Woman Suffrage Coalition, and American Society," Whitney Humanities Center, Yale U., January 1983; History Colloquium Series, Princeton U., March 1984. "Women's Education Before 1837," panel, Conference on Women and Education: The Last 150 Years, Mt. Holyoke College, April 1982. "The Crisis in Feminism, 1910-1920," Radcliffe Research Scholars Series, Radcliffe College, May 1982; Women's Studies Series, Wesleyan U., October 1982. "Feminism and Women's History," Harvard U., Women's History Week, March 1982. "The Problem of Feminism in the 1920s," Isabel McCaffrey Lecture, May 1981, Harvard U.; American Civilization Dept., Brown U., November l98l; History and Women's Studies Series, U. of Michigan, March 1982; Center for European Studies, Harvard U., April 1982. Comment, "Consciousness and Society in New England, 1740-l840," Organization of American Historians annual meeting, April 1980, San Francisco, CA. "Women's History: Retrospect and Prospect," Harvard Divinity School History Colloquium, March 1980; U. of South Florida Women's Week, March 1980; American Assoc. for State and Local History, NE Regional Seminar, November 1980, New Haven, CT. "Women and Feminism in the 20th Century," Bunting Institute, Radcliffe College, October 1978. "Roundtable on Mary Ritter Beard," Fourth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, August 1978, South Hadley, MA. "Ministers and Women in the Late l8th and Early l9th Century," Princeton Theological Seminary, March 1978. "New England Women's Work in the Early National Period," Historic Deerfield, MA, February 1978. Comment, "Sexuality and Ideology in l9th-century America," Southern Hist. Assoc. Conference, November 1977, New Orleans, LA.

11
"Passionlessness: An Interpretation of Anglo-American Sexual Ideology, 1790- l840," History Dept. Colloquium, U. of Mass., April 1977; Rutgers U., March 1978; Marjorie Harris Weiss Lectureship, Brown U., March 1978. "Women and Religion in Early l9th-Century New England," History Department Colloquium Series, U.of Conn., February 1977; Old Sturbridge Village, March 1977. Chair and comment, "Comparative Perspectives on Sexual and Marital Deviance and the Law," Third Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, June 1978, Bryn Mawr, PA. "Adultery, Divorce, and the Status of Women in Revolutionary Massachusetts, "Conference on Women in the Era of the American Revolution, July, 1975, Washington, D.C.; Princeton U. Colloquium Series, November 1975; Boston State College Lecture Series on the American Revolution, November 1976. Young Women's Conversion in the Second Great Awakening," Second Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, November 1974, Cambridge, MA. Chair and comment, "Women in the Professions," First Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, March 1973, New Brunswick, N.J. PUBLIC SERVICE LECTURES: "The Past, Present, and Future of Feminism," OAH night lecture for the AP U.S. Exam-Reading Session, Louisville, KY, June 2012. "The Future of Marriage," Boston Review evening symposium, M.I.T., March 2011. "Women's Rights in the 20th Century," week-long series of lectures, Gilder-Lehrman Institute for American History seminars for teachers, June 2008, 2009, 2011. What is Gender History? Symposium on Women, History Connections Teaching American History Grant, Rockford Public Schools, Rockford, Illinois, October 2007. Marriage and the State, Thursday Morning Club (for the benefit of Mt. Auburn Hospital), Feb. 2006. What Can Venturesome Women of the 1920s Tell Us Today? Linda Rosenzweig Memorial Lecture, Wellfleet Public Library, Wellfleet MA, August 2005. "Marriage and the Public Order in the History of the United States," 2005 American Studies Summer Institute, John F. Kennedy Library, July 2005. "Preserving Women's History at Radcliffe and Harvard," Committee on the Concerns of Women at Harvard, June 2005. "Women's Education in the 18th Century," Adams Historic Site, Quincy, MA, April, 2005. Moderator, "What Sort of a Right is Marriage?" Harvard University Human Rights Program, March 2005. "What is Gender History?" annual luncheon for the College Board, Organization of American Historians, annual meeting, San Jose, CA, April 2005. "What the State Has to Do with It: Changing Marriage," Democrats Abroad, Paris, Dec. 2003. "Marriage and the Law," invited discussion with Senior Matrimonial Lawyers, educational retreat, Troutbeck Conference Center, Amenia NY, October 2003. Marriage as a Public Institution in the United States, Harvard Neighbors, February 2003; Harvard Librarians group, February 2003. Looking at the World after 9/11 through a Womens History Lens, Radcliffe Seminars Final Conference, April 2002. Women as Workers and Citizens in the Twentieth Century, Institute for Emerging Civil Rights Leaders, Harvard Graduate School of Education, June 11, 2001. The Value of Womens Work: Historical, Public and Private Views, Bostonian Society, May 2001. Woman Suffrage: Why Did It Take So Long? and The Gender Structure of Citizenship, NEH Summer Institute for High School and Middle School Teachers on Womens Rights and Citizenship in American Thought, Ohio State Univ., July 2000. Education in Abigail Adams Time, Women and the American Revolution Lecture Series, Adams National Historical Site, Quincy, MA, June 2000.

12
Women of Conscience in Politics, Maine Town Meeting, 50th anniversary of Sen. Margaret Chase Smiths Declaration of Conscience, June 1, 2000, Skowhegan, Maine. The History of Marriage, testimony and discussion before the Judiciary Committee, Vermont House of Representatives, January 2000. "Women as Citizens in the 20th Century," A Millennium Evening at the White House, Washington, D.C., March 1999. "Historians and Filmmakers: A Dialogue," Chatauqua .N.Y., August 1997. "Winning the Women's Ballot: Citizenship, World War, and the Woman Suffrage Campaign," U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, August 1995. "The Beginnings of Women's Education in the U.S.," Witmer Lecture, Social Studies Dept., Hunter College High School, March 1995. "New Immigrants, New Women," Rebecca Plank Memorial Lecture, Milton Academy, March 1995. "The South and the Nation in the History of Women's Rights," Conference of Southern Humanities Foundations, Washington, D.C., May 1988. "Women's Rights: Unspeakable Issues in the Constitution," Judicial Seminar, N.Y. State Judiciary Continuing Education, July 1988.
EXHIBIT B: MATERIALS CONSULTED SCHOLARLY WORKS BAILEY, MARTHA J., Momma's Got the Pill: How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut Shaped US Childbearing, 100 AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 98 (March 2010) BAILEY, MARTHA J., ET AL., Early Legal Access: Laws and Policies Governing Contraceptive Access, 1960-1980, Working Paper (2012), available at http://www.bus.ucf.edu/faculty/mguldi/file.axd?file=2013/3/Early+Legal+ Access-legal.pdf BARDAGLIO, PETER W., RECONSTRUCTING THE HOUSEHOLD: FAMILIES, SEX, AND THE LAW IN THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY SOUTH (1995) BASCH, NORMA, FRAMING AMERICAN DIVORCE (1999) BASCH, NORMA, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW: WOMEN, MARRIAGE, AND PROPERTY TH IN 19 CENTURY NEW YORK (1982) BECK, PHYLLIS W. AND JOANNE ALFANO BAKER, An Analysis of the Impact of the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendement, 3 WIDENER J. PUB. L. 743 (1994) BECK, PHYLLIS W. AND PATRICIA A. DALY, Pennsylvania's Equal Rights Amendment Law: What Does It Portend for the Future?, 74 TEMP. L. REV. 579 (2001) BLAKE, NELSON, THE ROAD TO RENO: A HISTORY OF DIVORCE IN THE UNITED STATES (1962) BREDBENNER, CANDICE. A NATIONALITY OF HER OWN: WOMEN, MARRIAGE, AND THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP (2009) BURNHAM, MARGARET, An Impossible Marriage: Slave Law and Family Law, 5 LAW AND INEQUALITY 187 (1987) CALVERTON, V.F., THE BANKRUPTCY OF MARRIAGE (1928) CHUSED, RICHARD H., Married Womens Property Law: 1800-1850, 71 GEO. L.J. 1359 (1983) COONTZ, STEPHANIE, MARRIAGE, A HISTORY (2006) COONTZ, STEPHANIE, THE SOCIAL ORIGINS OF PRIVATE LIFE: A HISTORY OF AMERICAN FAMILIES, 1600-1900 (1988)
COTT, NANCY F., Eighteenth-Century Family and Social Life Revealed in Massachusetts Divorce Records, JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY (Fall 1976) COTT, NANCY F., Divorce and the Changing Status of Women in 18th-Century Massachusetts, WM. & MARY Q. (October 1976) COTT, NANCY F., Marriage and Womens Citizenship in the United States, 18301934, AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (1998) COTT, NANCY F., PUBLIC VOWS: A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE AND THE NATION (2000) DITZ, TOBY L., PROPERTY AND KINSHIP: INHERITANCE IN EARLY CONNECTICUT (1986) EDWARDS, LAURA F., The Marriage Covenant Is at the Foundation of All Our Rights, 14 LAW & HIST. REV. 90 (1996) FOWLER, DAVID H., NORTHERN ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE (1987) FREEDMAN, ESTELLE B. AND JOHN DEMILIO, INTIMATE MATTERS: A HISTORY OF SEXUALITY IN AMERICA (2d ed. 1997) GLENDON, MARY ANN, ABORTION AND DIVORCE IN WESTERN LAW (1987) GROSSBERG, MICHAEL, GOVERNING THE HEARTH: LAW AND THE FAMILY IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA (1985) GROVES, ERNEST, THE MARRIAGE CRISIS (1927) HAMILTON, G.V. , AND KENNETH MACGOWAN, WHAT IS WRONG WITH MARRIAGE (1930) HARTOG, HENDRIK, MAN & WIFE IN AMERICA, A HISTORY (2000) HOFF, JOAN, LAW, GENDER, AND INJUSTICE: A LEGAL HISTORY OF U.S. WOMEN (1991) HOWARD, GEORGE ELLIOTT, A HISTORY OF MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS CHIEFLY IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES, 3 VOLS. (1904) JONES, CAROLYN C., Split Income and Separate Spheres: Tax Law and Gender Roles in the 1940s, 6 LAW AND HISTORY REVIEW 259 (FALL 1988) KERBER, LINDA K., NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE LADIES: WOMEN AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENSHIP (1998) KESSLER-HARRIS, ALICE, IN PURSUIT OF EQUITY: WOMEN, MEN, AND THE QUEST FOR ECONOMIC CITIZENSHIP IN 20TH-CENTURY AMERICA (2001)
-2-
KNIGHT, M.M., The Companionate and the Family, JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HYGIENE vol. X no. 5 (May 1924) MCMANUS, EDGAR J. BLACK BONDAGE IN THE NORTH (1973) MINTZ, STEVEN, DOMESTIC REVOLUTIONS: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE (1988) NASH, GARY. FORGING FREEDOM: THE FORMATION OF PHILADELPHIA'S BLACK COMMUNITY 1720-1840 (1988) NORTON, MARY BETH. FOUNDING MOTHERS AND FATHERS: GENDERED POWER AND THE FORMING OF AMERICAN SOCIETY (1996) PASCOE, PEGGY, WHAT COMES NATURALLY: MISCEGENATION LAW AND THE MAKING OF RACE IN AMERICA (2009) PAUL, DIANE B. & HAMISH G. SPENCER, Its Ok, Were Not Cousins by Blood: The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective, PLOS BIOLOGY, (DEC. 2008) REED, JAMES, FROM PRIVATE VICE TO PUBLIC VIRTUE: THE BIRTH CONTROL MOVEMENT AND AMERICAN SOCIETY SINCE 1830 (1978) RILEY, GLENDA, DIVORCE: AN AMERICAN TRADITION (1991) SALMON, MARYLYNN. WOMEN AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY IN EARLY AMERICA (1986) SHAMMAS, CAROLE, A HISTORY OF HOUSEHOLD GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA (2002) SHAMMAS, CAROLE, Anglo-American Household Government in Comparative Perspective, 52 WM. & MARY Q. 104 (1995) SUGARMAN, STEPHEN D. AND KAY, HERMA HILL, ED. DIVORCE REFORM AT THE CROSSROADS (1990) VANBURKLEO, SANDRA F. 'BELONGING TO THE WORLD': WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CULTURE (2001) VERNIER, CHESTER G. AMERICAN FAMILY LAWS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE FAMILY LAW OF THE FORTY-EIGHT AMERICAN STATES (1931, 1932, 1935). WARBASSE, ELIZABETH BOWLES. THE CHANGING LEGAL RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN 1800-1861 (1987)
-3-
CASES Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) Commonwealth v. Shoemaker, 359 Pa. Super. 111 (1986) Commonwealth v. Wasiolek, 251 Pa. Super. 108 (1977) Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536 (1974) Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) George v. George, 409 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1979) Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Henderson v. Henderson, 327 A.2d 60 (Pa. 1974) Hopkins v. Blanco, 457 Pa. 90 (1974) In re Hicks Estate, 7 Pa. Super. 274 (1897) Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979) Perlberger v. Perlberger, 426 Pa. Super. 245 (1993) Ruth F. v. Robert B., 456 Pa. Super. 398 (1997) Schofield v. Schofield, 51 Pa. Super. 564 (1911) United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) West Chester and Phila. RR Co v. Miles, 55 Pa. 209 (1867) Wilson v. Wilson, 126 Pa. Super. 423 (1937)
-4-
STATUTES An Act for the Better Regulation of Negroes in this Province, 1725-26 Pa. Stat. 59 An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, 1780 Pa. Stat. 67 Act of 11th April 1848 (P.L. 536) Act of 3d April 1872 (P.L. 35) Act of May 2, 1929 Act of March 19, 1943 Act of September 22, 1972 1 Pa. C.S. 2301 18 Pa. C.S 3121 18 Pa. C.S. 3128 23 Pa. C.S. 1101-1905
PLEADINGS FROM WHITEWOOD V. WOLF First Amended Complaint (November 7, 2013) Defendants Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories (December 16, 2013)
-5-
EXHIBIT PX-05
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, FREDIA HURDLE and LYNN HURDLE, EDWIN HILL and DAVID PALMER, HEATHER POEHLER and KATH POEHLER, FERNANDO CHANG-MUY and LEN RIESER, DAWN PLUMMER and DIANA POLSON, ANGELA GILLEM and GAIL LLOYD, HELENA MILLER and DARA RASPBERRY, RON GEBHARDTSBAUER and GREG WRIGHT, MARLA CATTERMOLE and JULIA LOBUR, SANDY FERLANIE and CHRISTINE DONATO, MAUREEN HENNESSEY, and A.W. AND K.W., minor children, by and through their parents and next friends, DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL WOLF, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Health; DAN MEUSER, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Revenue; and DONALD PETRILLE, JR., in his official capacity as Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court of Bucks County, Defendants.
EXPERT REPORT OF MICHAEL E. LAMB PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. I am a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University
of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. I have been retained by counsel for plaintiffs in this case to prepare this expert report in connection with the above-referenced litigation. I have actual knowledge of the matters stated in this expert report and could and would so testify if called as a witness.
2.
My background, experience, and list of publications from the last 10 years are
summarized in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit A to this expert report. 3. I hold a Bachelors degree in psychology and economics from the University of
Natal in Durban, South Africa (1972), Masters degrees in psychology from Johns Hopkins University (1974) and Yale University (1975), and a Ph.D. in psychology from Yale University (1976). 4. I have held academic positions as Assistant Professor of Psychology at the
University of Wisconsin, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, and Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Pediatrics at the University of Utah. In 2004, I took a position as Professor and Head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 5. From 1987 until 2004, I was head of the Section on Social and Emotional
Development and a Senior Research Scientist at the United States National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), an institute within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 6. I have authored more than 600 publications that have appeared either in peer-
reviewed professional journals or in professional books published by academic presses primarily for the readership of other professionals. I have written or edited about 45 books in the field of developmental psychology. The professional publications that I have written have focused on development in infancy, mother-child relationships, father-child relationships, the role of the father, sibling relationships, the effects of nontraditional rearing circumstances (including samesex parent families), the effects of daycare, child abuse, and forensic interview practices. A
number of my books, including my books on nontraditional families, are used widely as texts in graduate courses. 7. I have been a peer-reviewer for various professional journals regularly for more
than 35 years, and I edit the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law for the American Psychological Association. I currently average five to ten reviews of other professionals work per week. In connection with my work as a peer-reviewer, I have peer-reviewed dozens of articles that address the parenting abilities of gay men and/or lesbians and/or their childrens adjustment. 8. In the past four years, I have testified as an expert either at trial or through
declaration or been deposed as an expert in In the Matter of the Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G. in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 06-43881 FC 04; Cole v. The Arkansas Department of Human Services in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Case No. CV2008-14284; Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010); Massachusetts v. Dept Health and Human Serv., 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D. Mass. 2010); Windsor v. U.S., 833 F. Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012); Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d 944 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Sevcik v. Sandoval, No. 2:12-CV-00578-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. 2012); Darby v. Orr, Lazaro v. Orr, Nos. 12 CH 19718 & 19719 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty); Cooper-Harris v. U.S., No. 2:12-cv-887-CBM (W.D. Cal. 2013); Harris v. McDonnell, No. 5:13-CV-077-MFU (W.D. Va. 2013); and De Leon v. Perry, No. 5:13-CV-982-OLG (W.D. Tex. 2013).
9.
Over the past 40 years, I have pursued two broad areas of research. One line of
research has focused on forensic issues such as the credibility of children and the best ways of eliciting accurate information from victims of child abuse. This work is not directly relevant to the present litigation. The other line of research is concerned with childrens development and adjustment, especially the formative effects of the relationships that children establish with their parents and the ways in which these relationships shape childrens development over time. In this context, I have also examined factors that are likely to have an adverse effect on development, such as child abuse, and I have explored variations in rearing experiences that might affect child development, such as the effects of various types of nontraditional family forms. I am familiar with the research on families headed by gay and lesbian individuals and couples. 10. My initial research in the United States was about the formation of relationships
between babies and their parents in households with a mother and a father. When I began my research, I focused on the role played by fathers in childrens development. I later expanded my research in order to understand better the role that fathers play in childrens lives when they live with their children and when they do not, in both divorced and married families, and when they are highly involved or uninvolved in childcareas well as the roles played by factors such as out-of-home care, family structure, and cultural background. 11. In preparing this report, I reviewed the materials listed in the attached reference
list (Exhibit B). I may rely on those documents, in addition to the documents specifically cited as supportive examples in particular sections of this report, as additional support for my opinions. I have also relied on my years of experience in this field, as set out in my curriculum vitae (Exhibit A), and on the materials listed therein. The materials I have relied upon in
preparing this report are the same types of materials that experts in my field of study regularly rely upon when forming opinions on the subject. 12. I am being compensated at an hourly rate for actual time devoted, at the rate of
$350.00 per hour for preparation of reports and for testimony. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide. I. Summary Of Ultimate Conclusions. 13. Children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents are as likely to be well-
adjusted as children raised by different-sex parents, including biological parents. Numerous studies of youths raised by same-sex parents conducted over the past 30 years by respected researchers and published in peer-reviewed academic journals conclude that children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents are as successful psychologically, emotionally, and socially as children and adolescents raised by different-sex parents, including biological parents. 14. It is beyond scientific dispute that the factors that account for the adjustment of
children and adolescents are the quality of the youths relationships with their parents, the quality of the relationship between the parents or significant adults in the youths lives, and the availability of economic and social resources. These factors affect adjustment in both traditional and nontraditional families, including families headed by same-sex parents. The parents sexual orientation, gender or biological relatedness to the child do not affect the capacity to be good parents or their childrens healthy development. 15. Same-sex couples are forming families with children whether or not they reside in
states in which they are permitted to marry. Children of lesbian and gay couples would benefit from the protections marriage affords to families and children if their parents had the option of marrying.
16.
Thus, the assertion by the defendants in this case that Pennsylvanias exclusion of
same-sex couples from marriage promotes the well-being of children is simply wrong. II. The Factors That Determine Childrens And Adolescents Adjustment. 17. Psychologists use the term adjustment to refer to psychological well-being.
Adjustment refers to characteristics (including the absence of psychological or psychiatric symptoms and the absence of behavior problems) that allow children or adolescents to function well in their everyday life. Well-adjusted youths have sufficient social skills to get along with others, to get along and comply with adults, to function well in school, and, when they grow up, to function effectively in the workplace and establish meaningful intimate relationships. In contrast, maladjustment might be manifested by behavior problems, such as bullying and acting aggressively with others, or deficient social skills, which make it difficult for individuals to establish relationships with others and leave them socially isolated. 18. Over the last 50 years, more than 1000 studies have examined the factors that
predict healthy adjustment in children and adolescents. As a result of this significant body of research, psychologists have reached consensus on the factors that predict healthy development and adjustment. Among these are: a) the quality of childrens or adolescents relationships with their parents or parent figures; b) the quality of the relationships between the parents or significant adults in the youths lives; conflict between them is associated with maladjustment while harmonious relationships between the adults support healthy adjustment;
c) the availability of adequate economic and social resources, with poverty and social isolation being associated with maladjustment, and adequate resources supporting healthy adjustment. 19. The quality of parent-offspring relationships is determined by the degree to which
parents offer love and affection, emotional commitment, reliability and consistency, as well as the extent to which the parents read their children or adolescents effectively and provide appropriate stimulation, guidance, and limit-setting. The better the quality of parent-child relationships, the better the childrens or adolescents adjustment is likely to be, whether the parents have same- or different-sex orientations. 20. Not all differences among youths are differences in adjustment. Many ways in
which children or adolescents differ from each other are simply normal variations among people, and are unrelated to adjustment. There clearly are endogenous differences in personality, temperament, or physiological function that affect individual responses to psychological challenges and thus affect adjustment both directly and indirectly, in interaction with (complementing, dampening, or exaggerating) the influence of the other factors I discuss in more detail. For example, there has been considerable research on intelligence, but individual differences in intelligence are not viewed as markers of adjustment or maladjustment. Other normal variations can result from cultural differences (such as in assertiveness or individualism) or differences in personality (e.g., some children are extroverted while others are introverted). III. The Factors Predicting Healthy Adjustment Are The Same For Traditional and Nontraditional Families, And Children Or Adolescents In Nontraditional Families Are Just As Capable Of Healthy Adjustment As Those In Traditional Settings. 21. In the social sciences, the term traditional family refers to the childrearing
environment that social scientists formerly considered the norm a middle-class family with a 7
bread-winning father and a stay-at-home mother, married to each other and raising their biological children. Nontraditional family forms, by definition, involve any kind of variation from this pattern. Thus, families with fathers who assume responsibility for childcare would qualify as nontraditional, as would families with employed mothers, with two employed parents, with one parent, with same-sex parents, or that rely on childcare centers instead of performing childcare exclusively within the home. Nontraditional families constitute the vast majority of families in the United States today. 22. Societys early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form
have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well. This view derived directly from psychoanalytic thinking that was based on clinical observations, but not on empirical research. As psychoanalysis yielded to more empiricallybased psychology over the early parts of the last century, it became clear that this notion was unsupported. Research beginning in the late 1940s and continuing until the present has tested many of the hypotheses that flowed from the assumption that children and adolescents need to be raised in traditional families in order to develop healthily. Specifically, there have been over 50 years of research into the effects on children or adolescents of having one parent, of divorce, and of maternal employment. Intense interest in the effects of daycare began in the 1970s, as did interest in highly involved fathers (stay-at-home fathers or families in which mothers and fathers share childcare responsibilities) and in same-sex parent families and households. 23. This research has demonstrated that the correlates of childrens or adolescents
adjustment listed above are important regardless of whether children and adolescents are raised in traditional family settings or in nontraditional families. Childrens or adolescents adjustment
depends overwhelmingly upon the quality of the childrens or adolescents relationships with their parents, the quality of the relationships between the parents or significant adults in the youths lives, and the availability of sufficient economic and social resources. Since the end of the 1980s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings. 24. Although family structure does not dictate childrens adjustment, some normal
variations do characterize children and adolescents raised in nontraditional family settings. For example, such children often have distinctive attitudes about sex-role norms. Within the field, sex-role norms refer to the awareness of and beliefs in behavioral differences between boys and girls or men and women. In nontraditional families, children may have more flexible sex-role standards. This means, for example, that the children are more likely to think that both boys and girls can be astronauts or doctors, and that it is acceptable for both girls and boys to play with both trucks and dolls. By contrast, children raised in traditional family settings tend to have more sex-stereotypical notions about appropriate gender roles. Again, this variation with respect to sex-role norms is a normal variation, and has nothing to do with adjustment. A. Difficulties some children experience in single-parent families have nothing to do with parental gender. Numerous studies show that most of the children and adolescents who grow up in
25.
single-parent families are well adjusted. However, there is a significant body of research on the impact of divorce and single-parent family life demonstrating that children and adolescents in single-parent families are more likely to have adjustment difficulties than children and adolescents in two-parent families. Research shows that the reasons for this disparity are consistent with the predictors of adjustment generally. The primary causes of increased risk of maladjustment among children or adolescents in single-parent families are the reduced resources 9
often available when there is just one parent, and the disruptive effects of and conflict associated with parental separation, which often precedes single-parent family life. 26. Many children and adolescents of parents whose relationships dissolve lose one of
their supportive parental relationships, and do not get the benefit of both psychological and financial support from their non-resident parents. Additionally, many divorces expose children and adolescents to parental conflict both preceding and following the separation, and may also involve rejection by or separation from one of the parents and possible dislocations, such as moving to a new neighborhood and school. Finally, families headed by single mothers, in particular, often suffer considerable degrees of financial hardship because of a combination of factors including the continuing disparity in pay received by men and by women, and because many women, whether or not they were once married, have taken time out from the workforce to raise children. B. Male and female parents can be equally competent; the gender of the parents does not affect childrens development. Fifty years ago, it was widely assumed that the absence of a male parent figure
27.
accounted for the problems in adjustment encountered by some children and adolescents in single-parent families. However, extensive empirical research on nontraditional families has demonstrated that the presence or absence of a male parent is not important to adjustment; instead, it is the quality of the childrens experiences more broadly and, specifically the quality of the parent-child relationships, the quality of the relationship between the parents, and the adequacy of resources that explain the higher levels of maladjustment on the part of children and adolescents in one-parent families. It is well-established that both men and women have the capacity to be good parents, and that having parents of both genders does not enhance adjustment. 10
28.
Studies have shown that, at the time that parents first receive their children,
whether by birth or adoption, men and women are equivalently competent (or incompetent) at parenting. Most parenting skills are learned on the job. Because women in this society on average spend more time on the job, they often become more skillful at it over time. However, this disparity in parenting skills simply reflects womens greater experience and greater opportunities to learn rather than a biologically given capacity. When men actively care for their children, they become more skillful, too. Nothing about a persons sex determines the capacity to be a good parent. 29. Many studies have pointed to average differences between the ways in which
mothers and fathers interact with their children, but these differences are not significant to adjustment. These studies suggest that, on average, mens patterns of interaction with children are dominated by a more boisterous, playful, unpredictable interaction, while womens patterns are more soothing, containing, and restrictive. However, these differences do not apply across the board to all men or to all women, nor is it harmful when parents do not assume traditional gender roles with respect to interactive parenting styles. 30. Moreover, the observed differences in parenting style appear to reflect, in large
part, differences in the type of responsibility that the parent has within the home (i.e., differences between being the primary or secondary parent). When fathers are the primary caregivers, for example, the style of interaction between fathers and children often becomes more like typical mother-child interaction. Many children in all kinds of families (including those headed by different-sex couples) do not have parents who offer both of these parenting styles and this does not negatively affect them.
11
31.
There is no empirical support for the notion that the presence of both male and
female role models in the home enhances the adjustment of children and adolescents. Society is replete with male and female role models for children and adolescents. IV. Research Specific To Parenting By Same-Sex Couples Demonstrates That The Children And Adolescents Of Same-Sex Parents Are Just As Well-Adjusted As Those With Different-Sex Parents. A. Based on a significant and well-respected body of research, the scientific community has reached consensus that parental sexual orientation does not affect adjustment. The body of research that has examined childrens and adolescents adjustment in
32.
the specific context of parenting by same-sex couples represents approximately 30 years of scholarship and includes more than 50 peer-reviewed empirical reports. The earliest reports from studies of same-sex parents were published in the late 1970s, and research has continued to the present. More than 100 articles about same-sex parents and/or their offspring have been published in respected academic journals or as chapters in books for use by other professionals. These present both qualitative research (relying primarily on interviews and discussions with either the youths or with the parents) and quantitative research. 33. The results of these studies support and are consistent with the results of the
broader body of research on socialization in both traditional and nontraditional families. They demonstrate that the adjustment of children and adolescents of same-sex parents is determined by the quality of the youths relationships with the parents, the quality of the relationship between the parents, and the resources available to the families. 34. The results of these studies further demonstrate that adjustment is not affected by
the gender or sexual orientation of the parent(s). Research comparing the adjustment of children and adolescents of same-sex parents with the children and adolescents of different-sex parents
12
consistently shows that the children or adolescents in both groups are equivalently adjusted. The children and adolescents of same-sex parents are as emotionally healthy, and as educationally and socially successful, as children and adolescents raised by different-sex parents. The social science literature overwhelmingly rejects the notion that there is an optimal gender mix of parents or that children and adolescents with same-sex parents suffer any developmental disadvantages compared with those with two different-sex parents. 35. There is consensus within the scientific community that parental sexual
orientation has no effect on childrens and adolescents adjustment. The leading professional organizations representing mental health and child welfare professionals have issued statements confirming that same-sex parents are as effective as different-sex parents in raising well-adjusted children and adolescents and should not face discrimination. These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. 1
Those opposed to parenting by same-sex couples sometimes refer to a group called the American College of Pediatricians, which takes a contrary view. This group should not be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the well-established professional organization of pediatricians in the United States. According to the American College of Pediatricians website, the group was formed in 2002, and [o]f particular importance to the founders were (as it is today) the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the importance of the fundamental mother-father family (female-male) unit in the rearing of children. http://www.acpeds.org/about-us/about-the-college. The group promotes fringe, unsupported views about sexual orientation, including that [f]or unwanted sexual attractions, therapy to restore heterosexual attraction has proven effective and harmless. See American College of Pediatricians publication Facts About Youth, available at 13
36.
Advocacy organizations opposed to marriage for same-sex couples sometimes
claim that a study by Mark Regnerus 2 shows that children raised by same-sex parents fare worse than children raised by different-sex parents. But this study allows for no such conclusion because it did not actually assess individuals raised by same-sex parents. The majority of the respondents in the studys so-called lesbian mother and gay father groups were the product of failed heterosexual unions whose parents had same-sex relationships at some point. 3 Most of the children spent very little if any time living in households headed by same-sex couples. 4 Moreover, most of Regneruss gay father and lesbian mother participants were in families that went through divorces and transitions to single-parent or step-family life, which, as I have discussed above, are known correlates of poorer child outcomes. In contrast, Regnerus excluded from his comparison group all the heterosexual parent families that went through divorce, including only those that remained intact throughout the respondents childhoods. Thus, the piece merely documented the well-established fact that children tend to do better in stable, intact families than they do after experiencing their parents divorce. Regnerus himself recognized that [c]hild outcomes in stable, planned [gay, lesbian or bisexual] families and those that are the http://factsaboutyouth.com/getthefacts/quickfacts. All of the leading professional groups have, by contrast, criticized such therapies and have drawn attention to their ineffectiveness. Mark Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Social Science Research 41 (2012) 752-770. Individuals were deemed to have gay fathers or lesbian mothers if they affirmatively answered the following question: From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex? Just over half of the respondents in the lesbian mother group lived with their mothers and their partners for at least 4 months; under a quarter did so for more than 3 years. For the gay father group, under a quarter lived with their fathers and their same-sex partners for at least 4 months; under 2% did so for more than 3 years. 14
4 3 2
product of previous heterosexual unions are quite likely distinctive, as previous studies conclusions would suggest. 5 Simply put, Regnerus did not study the adjustment of children raised by same-sex parents at all, and this study does not tell us anything about children who grow up in families with same-sex parents. 6 The same is true of a recent study by an economist called Douglas W. Allen. 7 The study purported to show lower high school graduation rates for Canadian adolescents and young adults raised by same-sex parents rather than married heterosexual parents. However, because the Canadian Census only provided information about the childrens residence for the five years before the survey, we do not know about the kinds of families in which the children lived during most of their childhoods. This is important because problems that predict dropping out tend to emerge well before high school. And because planned same-sex parent families were uncommon when these children were born (the 1980s), it is very likely that many of the children in the gay and lesbian parent groups were the product of prior heterosexual relationships that subsequently broke up and, thus, spent some portion of their childhood in different types of families. Moreover, because no data about prior family dissolutions were obtained, Allen was unable to account for the impact of family dissolution, which (as noted above) is frequently associated with maladjustment in children and adolescents.
5 6
Id., at 765.
Moreover, Regnerus study has been discredited by an internal audit conducted by the journal that published it. See Darren E. Sherkat, The Editorial Process and Politicized Scholarship: Monday Morning Editorial Quarterbacking and a Call for Scientific Vigilance, Social Science Research 41 (2012) 13461349. The auditor concluded that the paper has serious flaws and distortions and should not have been published. Id. at 1347, 1349. Douglas W. Allen, High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households, Rev. Econ. Household (2013) 11:635-658. 15
7
For these reasons, no conclusions can be drawn from this study about the effects of being raised by same-sex couples. B. Studies identifying differences in the children or adolescents of same-sex parents have identified only normal variations, and not differences in adjustment. Like children and adolescents in other nontraditional families, children and
37.
adolescents with same-sex parents have sometimes been found to have less sex-stereotyped beliefs, and to be more open in their views of societal norms and standards about appropriate behavior for males and females. For example, some studies of young children suggest that girls raised by lesbian mothers may be more likely than girls raised by heterosexual mothers to play with both dolls and trucks, and to think that being an astronaut or being a doctor are appropriate aspirations for girls as well as boys. Although there was a time when some developmental psychologists believed that conformance to sex-based stereotypes was a component of healthy adjustment, this view has been discredited and abandoned. The observed differences in sexstereotyped beliefs and behavior between children of lesbian and heterosexual parents are not differences in adjustment. Children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents do not differ from those raised by different-sex parents with respect to how they identify their sexual orientation later in life. Neither do they differ with respect to gender identity. C. The methodology used in the research examining same-sex parenting meets the rigorous standards accepted in the field. Social scientists use and value diverse methodologies, research designs, and types
38.
of data that vary depending on the discipline involved, the specific area of research, the questions being raised, and the theories being applied and evaluated. Developmental psychologists (and psychologists more generally) tend to emphasize intensive examination of relatively small numbers of individuals, often studied in the context of social relationships and influences. For 16
example, most studies documenting that children are more likely to form secure attachments when their parents are sensitively responsive involve samples that are small and selective, yet the findings are recognized as conclusive. Developmental psychologists use research methods based on statistically representative national samples much less often than demographers and quantitative sociologists. Such large-scale survey research methods are often too blunt to address adequately the complex and nuanced questions that generally are at issue when scholars attempt to assess and compare the course of child development in different circumstances. It is common for researchers to use what are often referred to as convenience samples, and to explore those samples intensively, rather than to study large samples more superficially. 39. The major studies of same-sex parent families employ a range of methodologies,
including both intensive examination of small convenience samples and large-scale representative surveys. These studies meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. The studies specific to same-sex parenting from which I draw my conclusions were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, Developmental Psychology and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. The journals Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry are the flagship peer-reviewed journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies on which I rely appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a
17
result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions. 8 V. Data Concerning Single-Parent Families Does Not Support Conclusions About The Impact Of Parental Gender Or Sexual Orientation On Childrens Development. 40. Advocacy groups opposed to parenting by same-sex couples sometimes point to
research showing that children and adolescents in single-parent families are at greater risk of maladjustment than those raised by two parents to support the view that youths need both mothers and fathers, and therefore that heterosexual couples make the best parents. This mischaracterizes the research into single-parent families, which typically does not explore the effects of parental sexual orientation or gender. 41. Studies on the impact of single-parent family life generally compare single-parent
and married-couple heterosexual parents; I am aware of no such study that includes same-sex couples. Consequently, it is inappropriate to attribute the differences resulting from the number of parents (and the disruption, exposure to conflict and lack of resources often associated with single-parent family life) to parental gender or sexual orientation, or to draw conclusions about the children of same-sex parents from these studies. The relevant studies do suggest, however, that, all other things being equal, children and adolescents tend to do better with two parents than
Advocacy organizations opposed to marriage for same-sex couples sometimes cite an article by sociologist Loren Marks to argue that the body of literature on children of same-sex parents is flawed. The article, entitled Same-Sex Parenting and Childrens Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Associations Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, is a review of the literature that mischaracterizes the extensive research about same-sex parents published before 2005, and curiously, although published in 2012, ignores entirely the many informative studies published since 2005.
18
one, and therefore, that children and adolescents with same-sex parents, like their peers, likely would benefit if their parents could choose to marry and solidify their family ties. VI. Opposition To Marriage For Same-Sex Couples Based On The Purported Superiority Of Biological Parenthood Is Not Supported By Research. 42. Advocacy organizations opposed to marriage for same-sex couples sometimes
argue that gay and lesbian couples should not be permitted to marry because, they claim, children do best in families with two biological parents and, by implication, that having same-sex parents is bad for children. 43. However, the practice of forming families in which the children are not
biologically related to one or both parents is hardly unique to same-sex couples. Many heterosexual couples become parents through adoption or the use of assisted reproduction involving donor sperm or ova. Indeed, most couples using donor sperm are heterosexual couples. 44. In any case, there is no basis for the asserted superiority of biological parenthood.
Children adopted early in life (as opposed to children who were adopted later, often after difficult early life experiences) have outcomes similar to those of children raised by their biological parents. And children conceived through the use of donor sperm or ova (whether to different-sex or same-sex parents) fare no differently than children raised by two biological parents. In addition, a substantial body of research on parents who have chosen to raise biologically unrelated children shows that such parents are at least as competent as parents raising their biological children; indeed, many studies show that these parents are more competent or committed in some respects. 45. While some studies show that children do better when raised by both of their
parents than when raised by one parent and the parents new partner (i.e., step-parent), these 19
differences are not due to biological relatedness. They are due to the fact that children in stepfamilies have experienced family disruption and typically also the conflict and loss of a parental relationship, which, as discussed above, all put children at higher risk for adverse outcomes. The studies comparing two parent families to step-parent families have not examined children being raised by same-sex couples who jointly planned to bring children into their families either by birth or adoption, and jointly raise the children. One would not expect the difficulties experienced by children in step-families to appear in same-sex parent families rearing children in intact families. As explained above, the research comparing children with same-sex and different-sex parents shows no differences in outcome. 46. Studies examining the impact of step-family life sometimes use the term
biological parents as shorthand to distinguish between parents (whether biologically related to the child or not) and step-parents. Unfortunately, advocacy groups opposed to marriage for same-sex couples sometimes erroneously cite these studies when claiming that biological parenthood best promotes childrens well-being even though these studies offer no support for this proposition. 9
In fact, the authors of one such study commonly relied on in litigation by opponents of marriage for same-sex couples have publicly disclaimed the mischaracterization of their study. See Kristen Anderson Moore, et al., Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It, Child Trends Research Br. (June 2002), introductory note (no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.). 20
VII.
Excluding Same-Sex Couples From Marriage Does Not Prevent Them From Forming Families with Children. And The Children In These Families Would Benefit If Their Parents Were Permitted To Marry Or Have Their Marriages Recognized. 47. Lesbian and gay couples are forming families with children. Census data show
that families with children headed by same-sex couples are living in every state, including states in which they cannot marry. The 2010 Census reports over 3500 such families in Pennsylvania. 48. Marriage can yield important benefits for children and families, including state
and federal legal protections, economic resources, family stability, and social legitimacy. These benefits are equally advantageous for children and adolescents in families headed by same-sex and different-sex couples. Allowing same-sex couples to have equal access to those benefits afforded through marriage is in the best interests of the children in these families. 49. Opponents of same-sex marriage have sought to demonstrate poorer outcomes for
children of same-sex couples in order to argue that same-sex couples should be denied the opportunity to marry. This is perplexing because demographic groups in which child outcomes are, on average, known to be poorer are not excluded from marrying. For example, studies consistently show that, on average, children in low-income families have significantly poorer outcomes than children in higher income families; children of parents who are less educated fare worse than children whose parents went to college; and children in some racial and ethnic groups have poorer outcomes than their peers. Not only are adults in these groups permitted to marry, but because marriage offers families important resources and support, significant efforts have been made to encourage marriage in these groups in order to help ameliorate the disparities. Thus, even if children in same-sex parent families had poorer outcomes on average (which, as discussed above, they do not), that would be a reason to encouragenot barmarriage by samesex couples. 21
Exhibit A
Curriculum Vitae
MICHAEL E. LAMB Professor of Psychology in the Social Sciences Department of Psychology University of Cambridge Free School Lane Cambridge CB2 3RQ United Kingdom Phone: Fax: E-Mail: Education: BA MA MS M. Phil. Ph.D. University of Natal, Durban (South Africa) ...................................1972 Johns Hopkins University ...............................................................1974 Yale University ...............................................................................1975 Yale University ...............................................................................1975 Yale University (degree completed 10/75) .....................................1976 (44)-01223-334523 (44)-01223-334550 mel37@cam.ac.uk
Employment History: Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison: June 1976 to August 1978 Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan: January 1978 to December 1980 Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Pediatrics, University of Utah: January 1981 to June 1987 Visiting Professor, School of Social Work, University of Haifa (Israel): Spring 1981. Visiting Professor, School of Education, University of Hokkaido, Sapporo (Japan): Summer 1985. Senior Research Scientist and Chief, Section on Social and Emotional Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: July 1987 to August 2004. Visiting Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Osnabrck (Germany), Fall 1995. Visiting Professor, Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg (Germany), Fall 1996. Professor of Psychology in the Social Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, September 2004 to present. Weiswasser Visiting Professor of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, Spring 2007.
Distinctions and Honors: Certificates of Merit for Outstandingly Good Work in Psychology and Economics, University of Natal .............................................................................1971, 1972 Economics Society of South Africa Annual Essay Prize ..........................................1972 Prize Fellowship in the Social Sciences, Yale University .........................................1975/76 Young Psychologist Award, American Psychological Association ..........................1976 Boyd R. McCandless Young Scientist Award (American Psychological Association) ..............................................1978 Superior Research Award, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Utah..............................................................................1985 Distinguished Research Award, University of Utah .................................................1986 Distinguished Speaker Award, American Family Therapy Association ...................1987 Ph.D. (Honoris Causa), University of Goteborg, Sweden.1995 Hammer Award for Helping to build a better government (Co-recipient), Vice-President Albert Gore................................................................1998 James McKeen Cattell Fellow Award for Lifetime Achievement, American Psychological Society. 2003 Doctor of Civil Law (Honoris Causa), University of East Anglia, UK. 2006 Salt Lake County Childrens Justice Award...2011 Awarded status of Academician by Academy of Social Sciences..2013 Distinguished Contribution Award, American Psychology-Law Society..2013 Tom Williamson Award for "Promoting best practices in investigative interviewing in respect of fundamental human rights, International Investigative Interviewing Research Group.2013 G. Stanley Hall Award for Distinguished Contribution to Developmental Psychology (American Psychological Association).......2014 Professional Committee Membership and Services: American Psychological Association, Boyd R. McCandless Award Selection Committee, 1979 and 1980 Society for Research in Child Development, Committee on Study Groups and Institutes, 1983-1987 Social Science Research Council Committee: Biosocial perspectives on parental behavior, 1983-1991 Consultant, Municipality of Jerusalem (Israel), Department of Community and Family Services (1987-1994) Advisory Working Group, U. S. Department of Education, Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (1990-1993) International Advisory Committee, Interdisziplinres Zentrum fr Angewandte Sozialisationsforschung, Berlin (1991-1996) External Advisory (Visiting) Committee, Michigan State University, Institute for Children, Youth and Families (1992-1999) Advisory Panel, American Enterprise Institute, Project on Disconnected Youth (1992-1995) International Committee, Division 7 (Developmental Psychology), American Psychological Association (1993-1996)
National Advisory Board, Mens Health Network (1993-1997) National Advisory Board, Program in Teacher Preparation and Special Education, George Washington University (1994-1997) National Advisory Council, SOS Childrens Villages-USA (1994-1997) National Advisory Board, National Fatherhood Initiative (1994-2004) International Advisory Committee, Human Development Resource Centre, Bamenda, Cameroon (1995-present) American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (National Research Committee member, 1999-2004; Maryland State Board, 1998-2001; Executive Committee, Maryland Chapter, 1998-2000; Chair, Maryland Training and Education Committee, 1998-2000) Board of Directors, National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families (1999-2003) National Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education, Institute for Womens Policy Research (2001-2003) Steering Committee, Center for Substance Abuse Preventions FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) Center for Excellence (2001-2002) Board of Trustees, Fatherhood Institute [formerly Fathers Direct] (2005 2009) Advisory Board, Center for the International Study of Youth and Political Violence, University of Tennessee (2005- present) Joseph Rowntree Foundation Advisory Group for research on Fathering in early-middle childhood in UK South Asian families (2006- 2009) Joseph Rowntree Foundation Advisory Group for research on Understanding fatherhood: Masculinity, diversity and change (2006- 2008) U. K. Economic and Social Science Research Council (2006 2011; Chair, International Advisory Committee, 2007-2011; Member, Audit Committee, 20062011) British Council Science and Engineering Advisory Group and Council Member (2007-present) Association for Psychological Science Cattell Award Selection Committee (2009-present; Chair, 2013-present) Wissenschaftlichen Beirat, Niedersachsischen Instituts fur fruhkindliche Bildung und Entwicklung [Scientific Advisory Committee, Lower Saxony Institute for Child Development and Education] (2009-2011) Wissenschaftlichen Beirat, Fakultt fr Psychologie, Universitt Wien [Scientific Advisory Board, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna] (2011-2015) U. K. Higher Education Funding Councils Research Excellence Framework 2014: Member of sub-panel 4: Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience (2011-2015)
Grant Proposal Review Committees: National Science Foundation Experimental Program Review and Study Committee (1980) National Institute of Mental Health, Study Committee for Review of Proposed Research on the Effects of Divorce (1980) National Institute on Child Health and Human Development, Study Panel on Human Development and Aging (1981) National Institute of Mental Health, Panel on Cognition, Emotion and Personality (1985-1989)
Ad-hoc Grant Proposal Review: Australian Research Grants Committee, Big Lottery Fund, Carnegie Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Grant Foundation, Leverhulme Foundation, US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, US National Institute of Education, US National Institute of Mental Health, US National Science Foundation, New Zealand Research Grants Committee, Nuffield Foundation, Research Council of Canada, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Spencer Foundation, Thrasher Foundation Editorial Board Memberships: Apprentissage et Socialisation (1992-1994) Applied Cognitive Psychology (2007-present) Applied Developmental Science (2005-present) Archives of Scientific Psychology (Associate Editor, 2012-present) Behavioral Assessment (1982-1983) The Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1979-1990) Child Abuse and Neglect (2002-present; Associate Editor: 2005-present) Child Development (1979-1984; 1993-1996) Childbirth Educator (1982-1989) Developmental Psychology (1981-1986; 1992-1994) Developmental Review (2000-present) Early Education and Development (1989-1993) Family Court Review (2002-2008) Fathering (2002-present) Human Nature (1989-1996) Infant Behavior and Development (1980-present) Infant Mental Health Journal (1984-1987) International Journal of Behavioral Development (1993-2001) Journal of Adolescent Research (1986-present) Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma (1997-2005) Journal of Child Custody (2002-2013) Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology (1996-2000) Journal of Marriage and the Family (1992-1999; 2001-2002) Journal of Social and Personal Relations (1983-1987) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (2010-present; Editor-Elect, 2012; Editor, 2013-2018) Social Development (1990-present) Editorial Consultant: American Psychologist, American Scientist, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Child Maltreatment, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Developmental Psychobiology, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Family Coordinator, Family Relations, Human Development, Human Organization, Human Relations, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, Journal of Family Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Law and Human Behavior, Legal and Criminological Psychology, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Pediatrics, Personality and Individual Differences, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Science, Science Conference Review Panels: American Psychological Association, 1983, 1984 American Psychology-Law Society Convention, 1996, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2113 European Conference on Traumatic Stress, 2009 Head Start National Research Conference, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004 (Program Committee) International Conference on Infant Studies, 1982, 1984 (panel chair), 1986, 1990 International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, 2002, 2004 Society for Research in Child Development, 1979, 1981, 1989, 2001, 2007, 2009, 2013 World Congress on Infant Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 1986 Publication Review: Academic Press, Blackwell Press, Cambridge University Press, Cummings Publishing Co., Harvard University Press, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, McGraw Hill, Michigan State University Press, Oxford University Press, Pergamon, Psychology Press, Random House, Sage, University of Chicago Press, University of Wisconsin Press, Wiley. Society Memberships: American Psychological Association American Psychology-Law Society Association for Psychological Science (Fellow) British Psychological Association (Fellow) Society for Research in Child Development International Investigative Interviewing Research Group (member, Scientific Committee) University, Institutional, and Community Service: Chair, Colloquium Committee, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 1978-1980 Graduate Committee, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 1978-1980 Chair, Admissions Committee, Developmental Psychology Area, University of Michigan, 1978-1979 Executive Committee, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, 1980 Member, Deans Steering Committee to Develop and Establish a Graduate Program in the Neurosciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, 1982-1985 Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, University of Utah, 1982-1985 Executive Committee, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 1982-1986 Personnel Committee, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 1981-1984 Coordinator, Developmental Area, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 1982- 1986 University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee, University of Utah, 1985-1987 University of Utah Campus representative, nationwide TIAA Divestment Campaign (1985-87)
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Superior Research Award Committee, University of Utah, 1986 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, 1988-1990; 1993-1995 (Co-chair, 1994-1995) National Institutes of Health Day Care Oversight Board, 1995-1997 (Chair, Evaluation Subcommittee, 1997) National Institutes of Health, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Working Group on Intramural Activities, Committee member, 1996. International Advisory Board, Center for Global Law and Human Rights, University of Natal, South Africa, 2003-2005. Membre dHonneur Fondateur: Association Poesie, Arts, et Vie, 2004 present. Management Committee, Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, 2004 - present. Board of Electors (Convenor), Professorship of Family Research, University of Cambridge, 2004-2005. Faculty Board, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, 2004 - 2009. Psychology Research Ethics Committee, University of Cambridge, 2004 present. General Purposes Committee, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, 2005 2010 (Chair, 2007-2008). Board of Electors, Professorship of Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, 2006. Head, Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, 20052012. Research Policy Committee, University of Cambridge, 2007- 2012. Deputy Chair, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, 2007-2008. Faculty Board, Faculty of Politics, Psychology, Sociology, and International Studies, 2009-2011. Faculty board, Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science, 2012. Cambridge University Research Ethics Committee, 2012-2015. Memberships in Community Organizations American Civil Liberties Union, Cambridge: Past, Present, & Future, Human Rights Watch.
Research Grant Support History The development of father-infant and mother-infant relationships in the first year of life. (7/1/74 to 6/30/75: $5,200). Ecology of Human Development Program of the Foundation for Child Development (Principal Investigator). The development of parent-infant relationships in the second year of life (7/1/75 to 6/30/76: $5,200). Ecology of Human Development Program of the Foundation for Child Development (Principal Investigator). Mother-, father-, and sibling-infant relationships in the first two years of life (7/1/76 to 6/30/77: $10,000). Graduate School Research Committee of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Principal Investigator). Familial antecedents of achievement orientation in preschool-aged children. (7/1/76 to 6/30/77: $5,000). Spencer Foundation of Chicago (Principal Investigator). The effects of infant signals and characteristics on parental physiological responses (9/1/76 to 8/31/77: $2,000). National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research Support Grant (Principal Investigator). Study group to explore Methodological problems in the study of social interaction (July 1977: $7,000). Society for Research in Child Development (Principal Organizer; co-organizers Stephen J. Suomi, Gordon R. Stephenson). The development of social relationships within and beyond the family in infancy (7/1/77 to 6/30/78: $9,000). Graduate School Research Committee of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Principal Investigator). The determinants and consequences of security of parent-infant attachments (5/1/78 to 4/30/79: $5,000). Faculty Research Grant from the Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan. Determinants of early cognitive development in preterm infants (3/1/78 to 2/28/80: $26,000). The National Foundation/March of Dimes (Co-Investigator; Principal Investigator was Gary M. Olson). Infant social development in traditional and nontraditional families (7/1/78 to 6/30/81: $201,000). Riksbankens Jubileumsfond of Sweden (Principal Investigator). Maternal employment and infant social development (1/1/79 to 12/31/81: $45,000). Spencer Foundation of Chicago (Principal Investigator; Co-investigators were Margaret Owen and Lindsay Chase-Lansdale).
Study group to explore The role of the father in child development, social policy, and the law (July 1980: approx. $6,000). Society for Research in Child Development (Co-organizer; Principal organizer, Abraham Sagi). Infant social and emotional development (7/1/80 to 6/30/81: $8000). University of Utah Research Committee (Principal Investigator). Infant social and emotional development (7/1/80 to 6/30/81: $6000). National Institute of Mental Health Biomedical Research Support Grant (Principal Investigator). Developing expectations in infancy: A longitudinal study of behavior in two social contexts (4/1/81 to 3/31/83: $100,000). National Science Foundation (Principal Investigator). The Fatherhood Project (9/1/81 to 8/31/83: $425,000). The Ford Foundation, The Levi Strauss Foundation, The Ittelson Foundation, and The Rockefeller Family Foundation (Co-Principal Investigator with James A. Levine and Joseph H. Pleck). Effects of center day care, family day care, and home care on socioemotional development (7/1/82 to 6/30/86: 1,405,000 Skr Riksbankens Jubileumsfond of Sweden (Co-Principal Investigator with Carl-Philip Hwang). Training program in developmental psychology (7/1/82 to 6/30/87: $215.940). National Institute of Mental Health (Director of Training Program, University of Utah). Study group to explore Adolescent Fatherhood (May 1984: approx. $6,000). Society for Research in Child Development (Co-organizer: Principal organizer, Arthur Elster). Quality of care and childrens adjustment to out-of-home care (12/1/83 to 11/30/84: $5000). University of Utah Research Committee (Principal Investigator). Study group to explore The interface between social scientists and the the real world. (September 1984: $8,000). The Harris Foundation (Co-Principal Organizer with Abraham Sagi). Fathers of infants with adolescent mothers (10/1/84 to 9/30/88: $236967 in direct costs). Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (Co-Principal Investigator with Arthur B. Elster). Section on Social and Emotional Development, Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (4/1987 to 9/2004: research costs averaging $850,000 per annum; 10/2004 to 9/2006: research costs averaging $500,000 per annum). Long term effects of varying early life experiences (3/1988 to 2/1991: 950,000 Skr).. Riksbanken Jubileumsfond of Sweden (Co-Principal Investigator with Carl-Philip Hwang). Mother-son attributions and aggressive interactions (8/1990 to 7/1993: $338,599). National Institute of Mental Health (Co-Investigator with Carol MacKinnon)
The relation between mother-son attributions and the aggressiveness of their interactions (10/1989 to 9/1992: $250,000). National Science Foundation (Co-Investigator with Carol MacKinnon). Long term effects of varying early life experiences (3/1997 to 2/1999: 1,000,000 Skr). Riksbanken Jubileumsfond of Sweden (Co-Principal Investigator with Carl-Philip Hwang). Long term effects of varying early life experiences (7/2002 to 7/2005: 1,950,000 Skr). Riksbanken Jubileumsfond of Sweden (Co-Principal Investigator with Carl-Philip Hwang). The development of living conditions of children (6/2005 to 5/2011: 1,350,000 Skr per annum). Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (Co-Organizer; Principal Organizer is Carl-Philip Hwang). Facilitating eyewitness testimony in children with learning disabilities. (7/2004 to 6/2006: 149,842). Economic and Social Research Council (Co-investigator with Deidre Brown and Charlie Lewis). Do best practice forensic interviews with child abuse victims influence case outcomes? (10/2006 to 3/2008: $173,089). US National Institute of Justice (Co-investigator with MargaretEllen Pipe and Yael Orbach). Strategies for interviewing children who are reluctant to disclose abuse (7/2007 to 6/2010: 199,529). The Nuffield Foundation (Principal Investigator). Strategies for interviewing children who are reluctant to disclose abuse (7/2007 to 6/2010: 50,589). The Isaac Newton Trust (Principal Investigator). Parenting and the psychological development of children in gay father families. (10/2009 to 9/2012: 351,863). The Economic and Social Research Council (Co-Investigator; Principal Investigator is Susan Golombok). Childrens evidence in criminal proceedings. (April 2011: 6000). Nuffield Foundation Conference Grant (Co-Investigator is John Spencer). Gay father families: The development of early parent-child relationships. (1/2013 to 12/2015: approx. 900,000, including 629835 for British arm of study). U. K. Economic and Social Research Council, French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, and Nederlands Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Principal Investigator; Co-Investigators are Hennie Bos (Netherlands), Susan Golombok (UK), Martine Gross (France), and Olivier Vecho (France)). Timely disclosures mean timely interventions for young offenders and victims. (1/2013 to 12/2017: 340,000). Jacobs Foundation (Principal Investigator). Timely disclosures mean timely interventions for young offenders and victims. (1/2013 to 12/2017: 340,000). Nuffield Foundation (Principal Investigator).
Publications Lamb, M. E. The effects of maternal deprivation on the development of the concepts of object and person. Journal of Behavioural Science, 1973, 1, 355-364. Lamb, M. E. Review of Separation: Anxiety and anger by John Bowlby. Journal of Behavioural Science, 1973, 1, 372-373. Lamb, M. E. A defense of the concept of attachment. Human Development, 1974, 17, 376- 385. Lamb, M. E. Physiological mechanisms in the control of maternal behavior in rats: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 104-119. Lamb, M. E. The sociability of two-year-olds with their mothers and fathers. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 1975, 5, 182-188. Lamb, M. E. Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. Human Development, 1975, 18, 245-266. Lamb, M. E. The relationships between infants and their mothers and fathers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37 (6B), 3153. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) The role of the father in child development. New York: Wiley, 1976. Japanese translation published in 1981 by Kasei Publishers. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father: An overview. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 1-63). New York: Wiley, 1976. Lamb, M. E. Interactions between eight-month-old children and their fathers and mothers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 307-327). New York: Wiley, 1976. Lamb, M. E. Proximity seeking attachment behaviors: A critical review of the literature. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1976, 93, 63-89. Lamb, M. E. Interactions between two-year-olds and their mothers and fathers. Psychological Reports, 1976, 38, 447-450. Lamb, M. E. Twelve-month-olds and their parents: Interaction in a laboratory playroom. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12, 237-244. Lamb, M. E. Effects of stress and cohort on mother-and father-infant interaction. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12, 435-443. Lamb, M. E. Parent-infant interaction in eight-month-olds. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 1976, 7, 56-63.
Tracy, R. L., Lamb, M. E., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. Infant approach behavior as related to attachment. Child Development, 1976, 47, 571-578. Lamb, M. E., & Lamb, J. E. The nature and importance of the father-infant relationship. The Family Coordinator, 1976, 25, 379-385. Reprinted in E. Murray (Ed.), The childs first learning environment: Selected readings in home economics (pp. 45-47). Paris: UNESCO, 1980. Lamb, M. E. A re-examination of the infant social world. Human Development, 1977, 20, 65-85. Lamb, M. E. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of life. Child Development, 1977, 48, 167-181. Reprinted in Gladys K. Phelan (Ed.), Family relationship: Selected readings (pp. 171-183). Minneapolis: Burgess, 1979. Lamb, M. E. Infant attachment to mothers and fathers. In S. Cohen & T.J. Comiskey (Eds.) Child development: A study of growth processes (pp. 167-180). Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1977. Lamb, M. E. The development of parental preferences in the first two years of life. Sex Roles, 1977, 3, 495-497. Reprinted in Roger C. Bailey (Ed.), New horizons in applying psychology. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole, 1980. Lamb, M. E. The development of mother-infant and father-infant attachments in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 1977, 13, 637-648. Lamb, M. E. The effects of divorce on childrens personality development. Journal of Divorce, 1977, 1, 163-174. Lamb, M. E. Infant social cognition and second-order effects. Infant Behavior and Development, 1978, 1, 1-10. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) Social and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1978. Lamb, M. E. Sociopersonality development: Introduction to a burgeoning field. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Social and personality development (pp. 1-21). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1978. Lamb, M. E. Social interaction in infancy and the development of personality. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Social and personality development (pp. 26-49). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1978.
Lamb, M. E., & Baumrind, D. Socialization and personality development in the preschool years. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Social and personality development (pp. 50-69). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1978. Lamb, M. E., & Urberg, K. A. The development of gender role and gender identity. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Social and personality development (pp. 178-199). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1978. Lamb, M. E. Psychosocial development: A theoretical overview and a look into the future. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Social and personality development (pp. 307-317). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1978. Lamb, M. E. The influence of the child on marital quality and family interaction during the prenatal, paranatal, and infancy periods. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction: A lifespan perspective (pp. 137-163). New York: Academic Press, 1978. Lamb, M. E. The fathers role in the infants social world. In J. H. Stevens & M. Mathews (Eds.), Mother/child, father/child relationships (pp. 87-108). Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1978. Lamb, M. E. & Stevenson, M. D. Father-infant relationships: Their nature and importance. Youth and Society, 1978, 9, 277-298. Lamb, M. E. Interactions between eighteen-month-olds and their preschool-aged siblings. Child Development, 1978, 49, 51-59. Reprinted in J. Belsky (Ed.), In the beginning: Readings in infancy (pp. 227-232). New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. Lamb, M. E. Qualitative aspects of mother-and father-infant attachments. Infant Behavior and Development, 1978, 1, 265-275. Rajecki, D. W., Lamb, M. E., & Suomi, S. J. Effects of multiple peer separation in domestic chicks. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 379-387. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Leavitt, L. A., & Donovan, W. L. Fathers and mothers responses to infant smiles and cries. Infant Behavior and Development, 1978, 1, 187-198. Roopnarine, J. L., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of day care on attachment and exploratory behavior in a strange situation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1978, 24, 85-95. Reprinted in J. G. Howells (Ed.), Advances in family psychiatry. (Vol. 4, pp. 473-483). New York: International Universities Press, 1981. Lamb, M. E. Review of Part-time father by E. Atkin & E. Rubin. The Family Coordinator, 1978, 27, 477-478.
Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Leavitt, L. A., Donovan, W. L., Neff, C., & Sherry, D. Fathers and mothers responses to the faces and cries of normal and premature infants. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 490-498. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Sex differences in physiological and behavioral responses to infant signals: A developmental study. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science (Ames), 1978. Lamb, M. E. The development of sibling relationships in infancy: A short-term longitudinal study. Child Development, 1978, 49, 1189-1196. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Sex differences in responsiveness to infants: A developmental study of psychophysiological and behavioral responses. Child Development, 1978, 49, 1182-1188. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Leavitt, L. A., & Donovan, W. L. Fathers and mothers responses to infant smiles and cries. Psychophysiology, 1978, 15, 276. (Abstract) Lamb, M. E. I rapporti fra madri, padri, bambini e fratelli nei prima due anni di vita (The relationship between mothers, fathers, infants, and siblings in the first two years of life.) In M. Cesa-Bianchi & M. Poli (Eds.), Aspetti biosociali dello sviluppo. Vol. 1. Aspetti medico-biologici (Atti del IV congresso biennale della ISSDB). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli, 1979. Lamb, M. E., Suomi, S. J., & Stephenson, G. R. (Eds.). Social interaction analysis: Methodological issues. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979. Lamb, M. E. Issues in the study of social interaction: An introduction. In M. E. Lamb, S. J. Suomi & G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), Social interaction analysis: Methodological issues (pp. 1-10). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979. Lamb, M. E. The effects of the social context on dyadic social interaction. In M. E. Lamb, S. J. Suomi & G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), Social interaction analysis: Methodological issues (pp. 253-268). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979. Rajecki, D. W. Lamb, M. E., and Obmascher, P. Toward a general theory of infantile attachment: A comparative review of aspects of the social bond. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1979, 1, 417-436. Rajecki, D.W., & Lamb, M. E. Interpretations, reinterpretations, and alleged misinterpretations of theory and data concerning attachment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1979, 1 461-464. Lamb, M. E. Review of Fathers, mothers and society by Rappoport, Rappoport, and Strelitz. American Scientist, 1979, 67, 112-113. Lamb, M. E. Paternal effects and the fathers role: A personal perspective. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 938-943.
Reprinted by Ginn Custom Publishing, Lexington, Mass., 1980 et seq. Reprinted in UNESCO Ideas Forum, 1981, 1 (4), supplement 10, pp. 1-2, 6. Reprinted in E. Zigler, M. E. Lamb & I. L. Child (Eds.), Socialization and personality development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Reprinted in J. K. Gardner (Ed.), Readings in developmental psychology (Second edition). Boston: Little, Brown, 1982. Reprinted in Annual Editions: Social Psychology, 1982 (pp. 68-73). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing, 1982. Stevenson, M. B., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of sociability and the caretaking environment on infant cognitive performance. Child Development, 1979, 50, 340-349. Lamb, M. E., Chase-Lansdale, P. L. & Owen, M. T. The changing American family and its implications for infant social development: The sample case of maternal employment. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.) The child and its family (pp. 267-291). New York: Plenum, 1979. Lamb, M. E., Owen, M. T., & Chase-Lansdale, L. The father-daughter relationship: Past, present and future. In C. B. Kopp & M. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Becoming female: Perspectives on development (pp. 89-112). New York: Plenum, 1979. Lamb, M. E. Infant social development: Reflections on a theme. Human Development, 1979, 22, 68-72. Easterbrooks, M. A., & Lamb, M. E. The relationships between quality of infant-mother attachment and infant competence in initial encounters with peers. Child Development, 1979, 50, 380-387. Lamb, M. E. Origins of the sense of security: A review of Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Science, 1979, 24, 730-731. Reprinted in Infant Mental Health Journal, 1980, 1, 68-70. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Psychophysiological responses to infant signals in abusive mothers and mothers of premature infants. Psychophysiology, 1979, 16, 183. (Abstract) Lamb, M. E., & Roopnarine, J. L. Peer influences on sex-role development in preschoolers. Child Development, 1979, 50, 1219-1222. Lamb, M. E. Separation and reunion behaviors as criteria of attachment to mothers and fathers. Early Human Development, 1979, 3/4, 329-339. Rajecki, D. W., & Lamb, M. E. Infant attachment: Some further thoughts about theory and method. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1979, 2, 644-647.
Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Research on parental physiological responses to infant signals. Cry Research Newsletter, 1979, 1 (3). Lamb, M. E., & Frodi, A. M. The role of the father in child development. In R. R. Abidin (Ed.), Parent education and intervention handbook. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1980 (pp. 36-58). Lamb, M. E., Owen, M. T., & Chase-Lansdale, L. The working mother in the intact family: A process model. In R. R. Abidin (Ed.), Parent education and intervention handbook. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1980 (pp. 59-81). Lamb, M. E. What can `research experts tell parents about effective socialization? In M. D. Fantini & R. Cardenas (eds.), Parenting in a multi-cultural society. London & New York: Longmans, 1980 (pp. 160-169). Reprinted in E. Zigler, M. E. Lamb & I. L. Child (Eds.), Socialization and personality development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Updated, translated into Japanese, and republished in Child socialization and parenting education (pp. 45-56). Saitama, Japan: National Womens Education Center, 1991. Lamb, M. E. The development of parent-infant attachments in the first two years of life. In F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The father-infant relationship: Observational studies in a family setting. New York: Praeger Special Studies, 1980 (pp. 21-43). Lamb, M. E., & Bronson, S. K. The role of the father in child development: Past presumptions, present realities, and the future potential. In K. Berry (Ed.), Fatherhood and the male single parent. Omaha: Eastern Nebraska Office of Mental Health, 1980. Lamb, M. E. Growing up in the 1980s. In F. Littman (Ed.), Focus on the family: New images of parents and children in the 1980s. Boston: Wheelock College, 1980 (pp. 39-60). Lamb, M. E., & Bronson, S. K. Fathers in the context of family influences: Past, present, and future. School Psychology Digest, 1980, 9, 336-353. Roopnarine, J. L., & Lamb, M. E. Peer and parent child interaction before and after enrollment in nursery school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1980, 1, 77-81. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Child abusers responses to infant smiles and cries. Child Development, 1980, 51, 238-241. Lamb, M. E. The fathers role in the facilitation of infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 1980, 1, 140-149. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Infants at risk for child abuse. Infant Mental Health Journal, 1980, 1, 240-247.
Lamb, M. E. Unfulfilled promises: A review of The dynamics of psychological development by Alexander Thomas and Stella Chess. Contemporary Psychology, 1980, 25, 906- 907. Lamb, M. E., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Holden, G. W. Reinforcement and punishment among preschoolers: Characteristics, effects and correlates. Child Development, 1980, 51, 1230-1236. Reprinted by Ginn Custom Publishing, Lexington, MA., 1982 et seq. Lamb, M. E. On the origins and implications of sex differences in human sexuality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980, 3, 192-193. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., & Wille, D. Mothers responses to the cries of normal and premature infants as a function of the birth status of their own child. Journal of Research in Personality, 1981, 15, 122-133. Lamb, M. E. Cultural differences in father-child relationshipsJapan and the United States :Comments on Shwalb and Imaizumis paper. Hiroshima Forum for Psychology, 1981, 8, 65-67. Stipek, D. J., Lamb, M. E., Zigler, E. F. OPTI: A measure of childrens optimism. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, 41, 131-143. Hwang, C.-P., Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Frodi, M., & Steinberg, J. The parent-infant relationship in traditional and nontraditional families: Attitudes and behavior. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 1981, 11, whole number 6. Perloff, R. M., & Lamb, M. E. The development of gender roles: An integrative life-span perspective. J.S.A.S. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1981, 11, 52 (Manuscript No. 2294). Lamb, M. E., Garn, S. M., & Keating, M. T. Correlations between sociability and cognitive performance among eight-month-olds. Child Development, 1981, 52, 711-713. Lamb, M. E., & Brown, A. L. (Eds.) Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981. Lamb, M. E. Developing trust and perceived effectance in infancy. In L. P. Lipsitt (Ed.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 1). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1981 (pp. 101- 127). Lamb, M. E. Grief and mourning in children and adults: A review of Loss: Sadness and depression by John Bowlby. The Yale Review, 1981, 70, 463-466. Lamb, M. E. Mothers and fathers: The special childs special resources. The Forum (CEC New York State), 1981, 7 (2), pp. 5, 21. Lamb, M. E. But wheres the contribution? Contemporary Psychology, 1981, 26, 487.
Lamb, M. E. (ed.) The role of the father in child development (Revised edition). New York: Wiley, 1981. Lamb, M. E. Fathers and child development: An integrative overview. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Revised edition). New York: Wiley, 1981 (pp. 1-70). Lamb, M. E. The development of father-infant relationships. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Revised edition). New York: Wiley, 1981 (pp. 459-488). Lamb, M. E. Six definitions of competenceReview of Aspects of the development of competence: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 14), W. A. Collins (Ed.). American Scientist, 1981, 69, 682. Lamb, M. E. & Sherrod, L. R. (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: .: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981. Sherrod, L. R., & Lamb, M. E. Infant social cognition: An introduction. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981 (pp 1-10). Lamb, M. E., & Easterbrooks, M. A. Individual differences in parental sensitivity: Origins, components, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981 (pp. 127-153). Lamb, M. E. The development of social expectations in the first year of life. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981 (pp. 155-175). Stevenson, M. B., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of social experience and social style on cognitive competence and performance. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981 (pp. 375-394). Lamb, M. E., Garn, S. M., & Keating, M. T. Correlations between sociability and cognitive performance among eight-month-olds. Child Development, 1981, 52, 711-713. Lamb, M. E. Paternal influences on early socioemotional development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1982, 23, 185-190. Lamb, M. E. Review of Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1982, 23, 85-87. Lamb, M. E., Garn, S. M., & Keating, M. T. Correlations between sociability and motor performance scores in eight-month-olds. Infant Behavior and Development, 1982, 5, 97-101.
Olson G. M., & Lamb, M. E. Premature infants: Cognitive and social development in the first year of life. In J. M. Stack (Ed.), An interdisciplinary approach to the optimal development of infants: The special child. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1982 (pp. 71-89). Hall, E. (with M. E. Lamb & M. J. Perlmutter) Child psychology today. New York: Random House, 1982. Lamb, M. E. Second thoughts on first touch. Psychology Today, 1982, 16 (4), 9-11. Lamb, M. E. On the familial origins of personality and social style. In L. Laosa & I. Sigel (Eds.), FamiliesResearch and practice Vol 1. Families as learning environments for children. New York: Plenum, 1982 (pp. 179-202). Lamb, M. E. Social interaction, attachment, and socioemotional development in infancy. In R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon (Eds.), Development of attachment and affiliative systems. New York: Plenum, 1982 (pp. 195-212). Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Hwang, C. -P., Frodi, M., & Steinberg, J. Effects of gender and caretaking role on parent-infant interaction. In R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon (Eds.), Development of attachment and affiliative systems. New York: Plenum, 1982 (pp. 109-118). Lamb, M. E., & Brown, A. L. (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982. Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C.-P. Maternal attachment and mother-neonate bonding: A critical review. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982 (pp. 1-39). Lamb, M. E., & Goldberg, W. A. The father-child relationship: A synthesis of biological, evolutionary and social perspectives. In L. W. Hoffman, R. Gandelman & H. R. Schiffman (Eds.), Parenting: Its causes and consequences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982 (pp. 55-73). Lamb, M. E., & Campos, J. J. Development in infancy: An introduction. New York: Random House, 1982. Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A. & Frodi, A. M. Early social development. In R. A. Vasta (Ed.), Strategies and techniques of child study. New York: Academic Press, 1982 (pp. 42-91). Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Frodi, M., & Hwang, C. -P. Characteristics of maternal and paternal behavior in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1982, 5, 131-141. Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Hwang, C. -P., Frodi, M., & Steinberg, J. Mother-and father-infant interaction involving play and holding in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families. Developmental Psychology, 1982, 18, 215-221.
Reprinted in Psychologie Heute (German). Reprinted in D. H. Olson & B. C. Miller (Eds.), Family Studies Review Yearbook (Vol. II). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984. Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., Frodi, A. M., & Frodi, M. Security of mother-and father- infant attachment and its relation to sociability with strangers in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families. Infant Behavior and Development, 1982, 5, 355-367. Reprinted in S. Chess & A. Thomas (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1983. Thompson, R. A. , & Lamb, M E. Stranger sociability and its relationship to temperament and social experiences during the second year. Infant Behavior and Development, 1982, 5, 277-288. Reprinted in S. Chess & A. Thomas (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1983. Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. E., & Estes, D. Stability of infant-mother attachment and its relationship to changing life circumstances in an unselected middle-class sample. Child Development, 1982, 53, 144-148. Zigler, E. F., Lamb, M. E., & Child, I. L. Socialization and personality development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Lamb, M. E. Individual differences in infant sociability: Their origins and implications for cognitive development. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 16). New York: Academic Press, 1982 (pp. 213- 239). Lamb, M. E. Raising caring, nurturing, sons. Sesame Street Parents Newsletter, 1982, 2 (7), 6-7. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982. Translated and published in Japanese by Japan Uni Agency, Tokyo, 1998. Lamb, M. E. Parental behavior and child development in nontraditional families: An introduction. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982 (pp. 1-12). Lamb, M. E. Maternal employment and child development: A review. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982 (pp. 45-69).
Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Hwang, C. -P., & Frodi, M. Varying degrees of paternal involvement in infant care: Attitudinal and behavioral correlates. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982 (pp. 117-137). Lamb, M. E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (Eds.) Sibling relationships: Their development and significance across the lifespan. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982. Lamb, M. E. Sibling relationships across the lifespan: An overview and introduction. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their development and significance across the lifespan. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982 (pp. 1-11). Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Adolescent fathers: A group potentially at risk for parenting failure. Infant Mental Health Journal, 1982, 3, 148-155. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Frodi, M., Hwang, C. -P., Forsstrom, B., & Corry, T. Stability and change in parental attitudes following an infants birth into traditional and nontraditional Swedish families. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1982, 23, 53-62. Lamb, M. E., & Hall, E. Bonding. Childbirth Educator, 1982, 2 (3), 18-23. Lamb, M. E. The bonding phenomenon: Misinterpretations and their implications. Journal of Pediatrics, 1982, 101, 555-557. Lamb, M. E. Early contact and mother-infant bonding: One decade later. Pediatrics, 1982, 70, 763-768. Reprinted in D. H. Olson & R. Markoff (Eds.), Inventory of Marriage and Family Literature (Vol. 10). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984. Lamb, M. E. Generalization and inferences about causality in research on nontraditional families: Some cautions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1982, 28, 157-161. Lamb, M. E. Why Swedish fathers arent liberated. Psychology Today, 1982, 18 (10), 74-77. Lamb, M. E. La influencia de la madre y del padre en el desarrollo del nio (Mothers and fathers influences on child development/Spanish). In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Nuevas perspectivas en psicologa del desarrollo en lengua inglesa. Infancia y aprendizaje, 1983, 3, 83-101. Lamb, M. E. Bonding: Does it really matter? The Health Connection, 1983, 1(6), 3-4. Lamb, M. E. Fathers of exceptional children. In M. Seligman (Ed.), The family with a handicapped child: Understanding and treatment. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1983 (pp. 125-146). Lamb, M. E. Letters to the Editor: Reply. Pediatrics, 1983, 71, 864.
Lamb, M. E. Mother-infant bonding: A skeptical view. Faculty Journal (University of Utah School of Medicine), 1983, 6 (1), 9. Lamb, M. E., & Charnov, E. L. A case for less selfing and more outbreeding in reviewing the literature. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1983, 6, 109. Lamb, M. E., & Sagi, A. (Eds.) Fatherhood and family policy. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983. Portuguese translation published 1998. Lamb, M. E. Social policy issues pertaining to fatherhood: An introduction. In M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983 (pp. 1-11). Lamb, M. E., & Levine, J. A. The Swedish parental insurance policy: An experiment in social engineering. In M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983 (pp. 39-51). Levine, J. A., Pleck, J. H., & Lamb, M. E. The Fatherhood Project. In M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983 (pp. 101-111). Lamb, M. E., Russell, G., & Sagi, A. Summary and recommendations for public policy. In M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983 (pp. 247-258). Elster, A. B., McAnarney, E., & Lamb, M. E. Parental behavior of adolescent mothers. Pediatrics, 1983, 71, 494-503. Lamb, M. E., Frodi, M., Hwang, C. -P., & Frodi, A. M. Effects of paternal involvement on infant preferences for mothers and fathers. Child Development, 1983, 54, 450- 458. Campos, J. J., Caplowitz-Barrett, K., Lamb, M. E., Goldsmith, H. H., & Stenberg, C. Socioemotional development. In P. H. Mussen (General editor), Carmichaels handbook of child psychology; Volume 2, M. Haith & J. J. Campos (Eds.), Infancy and developmental psychobiology. New York: Wiley, 1983 (pp. 783-915). Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Individual differences in dimensions of socioemotional development in infancy. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (vol. 2), Emotions in early development. New York: Academic Press, 1983 (pp. 87-114). Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M.E. Security of attachment and stranger sociability in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 1983, 19, 184-191. Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. E., & Estes, D. Harmonizing discordant notes: A reply to Waters. Child Development, 1983, 54, 521-524.
Lamb, M. E. Friendly and bright. Childbirth Educator, 1983, 2 (3), 50-52. Lamb, M. E. Review of The place of attachment in human behavior by Colin Murray Parkes and Joan Stevenson-Hinde. American Scientist, 1983, 71, 321. Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Hwang, C. P., & Frodi, M. Interobserver and test retest reliability of Rothbarts Infant Behavior Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1983, 24, 153-156. Lamb, M. E. Letters to the Editor: Reply to Sugarman and Goldberg. Journal of Pediatrics, 1983, 103, 830. Lamb, M. E. Letters to the Editor: Reply to Emde and Osofsky. Pediatrics, 1983, 72, 750. Lamb, M. E., Campos, J. J.. Hwang, C. -P., Leiderman, P. H., Sagi, A., & Svejda, M. Joint reply to Mother-infant bonding: a joint rebuttal. Pediatrics, 1983, 72, 574- 576. Lamb, M. E. Letters to the Editor: More on infant-maternal bonding. Journal of Pediatrics, 1983, 103, 829. Lamb, M. E. Early mother-neonate contact and the mother-child relationship. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1983, 24, 487-494. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. -P., & Frodi, M. Father-mother-infant interaction in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families: A longitudinal study. Alternative Lifestyles, 1983, 5, 142-163. Lamb, M. E., & Zarbatany, L. Relationships among children. Science, 1983, 221, 356- 357. (Book review) Lamb, M. E. Fathers and child rearing. Childbirth Educator, 1984, 3(4), 42-45. Lamb, M. E. Father-child relationships in humans. In D. Taub (Ed.), Primate paternalism: An evolutionary and comparative view of male investment. New York: Van Nostrand, 1984 (pp. 407-430). Lamb, M. E. Fathers, mothers, and childcare in the 1980s: Family influences on child development. In K. Borman, D. Quarm, & S. Gideonse (Eds.), Women in the workplace. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1984 (pp. 61-88). Lamb, M. E. Fathers and child development. In Paternal absence and fathers roles: Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, US House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1984. Lamb, M. E. Mothers, fathers, and childcare in a changing world. In J. Call, E. Galenson, & R. L. Tyson (Eds.), Frontiers of infant psychiatry (Vol. 2). New York: Basic Books, 1985 (pp. 343-362).
Lamb, M. E. Portraits of Aussies at home. Contemporary Psychology, 1984, 29, 569- 670. (Book review) Lamb, M. E. & Alvarez, W. F. Values: Development and intervention. Contemporary Psychology, 1984, 29, 121-122. (Book review) Lamb, M. E., Brown, A. L., & Rogoff, B. (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984. Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., Gardner, W., Charnov, E. L., Estes, D. Security of Infantile attachment as assessed in the Strange Situation: Its study and biological interpretation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1984, 7, 127-147. Reprinted in S. Chess & A. Thomas (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1985. Lamb, M. E., Gardner, W., Charnov, E. L., Thompson, R. A., & Estes, D. Studying the security of infant-adult attachment: A reprise. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1984, 7, 163-171. Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984. Lamb, M. E. Social and emotional development in infancy. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E.Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984 (pp. 241-277). Dickstein, S., Thompson, R. A., Estes, D., Malkin, C., & Lamb, M. E. Social referencing and the security of attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 1984, 7, 507-516. Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Adolescent mother-infant-father relationships. Pediatric Research, 1984, 18, 97A. (Abstract) Frodi, A. M., Murray, A. D., Lamb, M. E., & Steinberg, J. Biological and social determinants of responsiveness to infants in 10-to 15-year-old girls. Sex Roles, 1984, 10, 639-649. Klinman, D., Kohl, R., and The Fatherhood Project [J. A. Levine, J. H. Pleck, & M. E. Lamb] Fatherhood USA. New York: Garland Press, 1984. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Infants, mothers, families, and strangers. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Beyond the dyad. New York: Plenum, 1984 (pp 195-221). Lamb, M. E. Another look at nonmaternal care. Contemporary Psychology, 1984, 29, 884-885. (Book review) Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Continuity and change in socioemotional development during the second year. In R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon (Eds.), Continuity and discontinuity in development. New York, Plenum, 1984 (pp. 315-338). Lamb, M. E. Bonding controversy. Childbirth Educator, 1984 (Fall), 13. (Letter)
Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Assessing qualitative dimensions of emotional responsiveness in infants: Separation reactions in the Strange Situation. Infant Behavior and Development, 1984, 7, 423-445. Lamb, M. E. The role of todays fathers. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1984, 18 (10), 102-109. Lamb, M. E. A comparison of second order effects involving parents and siblings. Annual Report: Research and Clinical Center for Child Development, Faculty of Education, University of Hokkaido, Sapporo (Japan), 1984-85 (pp. 1-8). Lamb, M. E. Family influences and the development of the young child. In C. S. Mcloughlin & D. F. Gullo (Eds.), Young children in context: Impact of self, family, and society on development. Springville, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1985 (pp 154-182). Lamb, M. E., Gaensbauer, T. J., Malkin, C. M., & Schultz, L. A. The effects of abuse and neglect on security of infant-adult attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 1985, 8, 35-45. Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., Gardner, W., & Charnov, E. L. Infant-mother attachment: The origins and developmental significance of individual differences in Strange Situation behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985. Zarbatany, L., & Lamb, M. E. Social referencing as a function of information source: Mothers versus strangers. Infant Behavior and Development, 1985, 8, 25-33. Lamb, M. E., & Gilbride, K. Compatibility in parent-infant relationships: Origins and processes. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships. New York: Springer, 1985 (pp 33-60). Lamb, M. E., & Elster, A. B. Adolescent mother-infant-father relationships. Developmental Psychology, 1985, 21, 768-773. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 1985, 25, 883-894. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A. The role of the father in child development: The effects of increased paternal involvement. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Plenum, 1985 (pp. 229-266). Portions reprinted as Effects of increased paternal involvement on fathers and mothers, in C. Lewis & M. OBrien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood: New observations on fathers and the modern family. London: Sage, 1987 (pp. 109- 125). Portions reprinted as Effects of paternal involvement on fathers and mothers, in R. A. Lewis & M. Sussman (Eds.), Mens changing roles in the family. New York: Haworth, 1986 (pp. 67-83).
Also published in a special issue of Marriage and Family Review, 1986, 9 (3/4), 76-83. Portions reprinted as Effects of increased paternal involvement on children in two parent families, in R. A. Lewis & R. E. Salt (Eds.), Men in families. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986 (pp. 141-158). Thompson, R. A., Cicchetti, D., Lamb, M. E., & Malkin, C. M. The emotional responses of Down Syndrome and normal infants in the Strange Situation: The organization of affective behavior in infants. Developmental Psychology, 1985, 21, 828-841. Lamb, M. E. Paternal deprivation reassessed. Contemporary Psychology, 1985, 30, 960-966. (Book review) Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Lewkowicz, K. S., Shoham, R., Dvir, R., & Estes, D. . Security of infant-mother, -father, and -metapelet attachments among kibbutz-reared Israeli children. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1985, 50, serial no. 209, 257-275. Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Shoham, R., Dvir, R., & Lewkowicz, K. S. Parent-infant interaction in families on Israeli kibbutzim. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1985, 8, 273-284. Lamb, M. E. Changing family patterns: Effects on young children. In K. Seifert (Ed.), The child in social context. Winnipeg, Canada: Faculty of Education Monograph Series, University of Manitoba, 1985 (pp. 9-21). Lamb, M. E. Fear of flying. Parents Magazine, 1985, (August), 48-51. Goldberg, W. A., Michaels, G. Y., & Lamb, M. E. Husbands and wives adjustment to pregnancy and first parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 1985, 6, 483-503. Lamb, M. E. Reply to Bachtold and Barton. Contemporary Psychology, 1985, 30. Hall, E., Lamb, M. E., & Perlmutter, M. Child psychology today (2nd edition). New York: Random House, 1986. Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Adolescent fathers. In J. B. Lancaster & B. A. Hamburg (Eds.), School-aged pregnancy and parenthood: Biosocial dimensions. New York: Aldine, 1986 (pp. 177-190). Lamb, M. E. Review of The Psychobiology of Attachment and Separation edited by M. Reite and T. Field. American Scientist, 1986, 74, 321-322. Lamb, M. E., & Malkin, C. M. The development of social expectations in distress relief sequences: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1986, 9, 235-249.
Pleck, J. H., Lamb, M. E., & Levine, J. A. Epilog: Facilitating future change in mens family roles. In R. A. Lewis & M. Sussman (Eds.), Mens changing roles in the family. New York: Haworth, 1986 (pp. 11-16). Also published in a special issue of Marriage and Family Review, 1986, 9(3/4), 11-16. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Infant-mother attachment: New directions for theory and research . In P. B. Baltes, D. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 7). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986 (pp. 1-41). Lamb, M. E., Brown, A. L., & Rogoff, B. (Eds.) Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986. Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Adolescent fatherhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986. Lamb, M. E. & Elster, A. B. Parental behavior of adolescent mothers and fathers. In A. B. Elster & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent fatherhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986 (pp. 89-106). Teti, D. & Lamb, M. E. Sex role development in adolescent males. In A. B. Elster & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent fatherhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986 (pp. 19-30). Elster, A. B. & Lamb, M. E. Epilogue: Research priorities. In A. B. Elster & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent fatherhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986 (pp.193-195). Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., Gardner, W., & Charnov, E. L. Convergent approaches to understanding Strange Situation behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1986, 9, 559-561. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) The fathers role: Applied perspectives. New York: Wiley, 1986. Lamb, M. E. The changing roles of fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The fathers role: Applied perspectives. New York: Wiley, 1986 (pp. 3-27). Reprinted in M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The fathers role: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987 (pp. 3-25). Reprinted in J. L. Shapiro, M. J. Diamond, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Becoming a father: Contemporary, social, developmental, and clinical perspectives. New York: Springer, 1995 (PP. 18-35). Translated (Portuguese) and reprinted in Analise Psicologica, 1992, 10, 19-34.
Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., & Gardner, W. Relations between Strange Situation behavior and stranger sociability among infants on Israeli kibbutzim. Infant Behavior and Development, 1986, 9, 271-282. Gardner, W., Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., & Sagi, A. On individual differences in Strange Situation behavior: Categorical and continuous measurement systems in a cross- cultural data set. Infant Behavior and Development, 1986, 9, 355-375. Lamb, M. E., Elster, A. B., Peters, L. J., Kahn, J. S., & Tavare, J. Characteristics of married and unmarried adolescent mothers and their partners. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1986, 15, 487-496. Reprinted in R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Adolescence: Development, diversity, and context. Hamden, CT: Garland Press, in press. Lamb, M. E., & Nash, A. Exploring the biologies of relationships. Contemporary Psychology, 1986, 31, 757-758. (Book review) Lamb, M. E., Elster, A. B., & Tavare, J. Behavioral profiles of adolescent mothers and partners with varying intracouple age differences. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1986, 1, 399-408. Lamb, M. E., & Bornstein, M. B. Development in infancy. New York: Random House, 1987. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L.R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the lifespan: Biosocial dimensions. Hawthorne, N Y: Aldine, 1987 (pp. 111-142). Reprinted by Transaction/Aldine in 2010. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) The fathers role: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987. Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E., Peters, L., Kahn, J., & Tavare, J. Judicial involvement and conduct problems of fathers of infants born to adolescent mothers. Pediatrics, 1987, 79, 230-234. Lamb, M. E. Review of Lewis and Saarni, The socialization of emotions. American Scientist, 1987, 75, 86-87. (Book review) Lamb, M. E. Baby. In the New book of Knowledge. New York: Grolier, 1987. Lamb, M. E. Will the real new father please stand up? Parents Magazine, 1987, 62(6), 77-80. Lamb, M. E. Niche picking by siblings and scientists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10, 30. Lamb, M. E. Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions.... Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10, 79.
Lamb, M. E. Review of W. W. Hartup and Z. Rubin, Relations and development. American Scientist, 1987, 75, 209-210. (Book review) Lamb, M. E., Morrison, D., & Malkin, C. M. The development of infant social expectations in face-to-face interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1987, 33, 241-254. Teti, D. M., Lamb, M. E., & Elster, A. B. Long-range socioeconomic and marital consequences of adolescent marriage in three cohorts of adult males. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1987, 49, 499-506. Lamb, M. E., Hopps, K., & Elster, A. B. Strange Situation behavior of infants with adolescent mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 1987, 10, 39-48. Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E., Tavare, J., & Ralston, C. W. The medical and psychosocial impact of comprehensive care on adolescent pregnancy and parenthood. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 1187-1192. Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E., & Tavare, J. The association between behavioral and school problems and fatherhood in a national sample of adolescent males. Journal of Pediatrics, 1987, 111, 932-936. Lamb, M. E. Predictive implications of individual differences in attachment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1987, 55, 817-824. Lamb, M. E., & Bornstein, M. H. (Eds.) Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (Revised Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. Translated into Italian by F. Simion and published as Lo sviluppo percettivo, cognitivo e linguistico. Milano, Italy: Raffaelo Cortina Editore, 1992. Lamb, M. E. Social and emotional development. In M. E. Lamb & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (Revised Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988 (pp. 359-410). Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., Bookstein, F. L., Broberg, A., Hult, G., & Frodi, M. The development of social competence in Swedish preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 1988, 24, 58-70. Oppenheim, D., Sagi, A., & Lamb, M. E. Infant-adult attachments on the kibbutz and their relation to socioemotional development four years later. Developmental Psychology, 1988, 24, 427-433. Nakagawa, M., Lamb, M. E., & Miyake, K. Psychological experiences of Japanese infants in the Strange Situation. Annual Report: Research and Clinical Center for Child Development, Faculty of Education, University of Hokkaido, Sapporo (Japan), 1987-88, 13-24.
Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., Broberg, A., & Bookstein, F. L. The effects of out-of-home care on the development of social competence in Sweden: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1988, 3, 379-402. Reprinted in N. Fox & G. G. Fein (Eds.), Infant day care: The current debate . Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1990 (pp. 145-168). Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., Broberg, A., Bookstein, F. L., Hult, G., & Frodi, M. The determinants of paternal involvement in primiparous Swedish families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1988, 11, 433-449. Lamb, M. E. The ecology of adolescent pregnancy and parenthood. In A. Pence (Ed.), Ecological research with children and families: From concepts to methodology. New York: Teachers College Press, 1988. (pp. 99-121) Lamb, M. E. Review of Fatherhood today: Mens changing roles in the family by P. Bronstein & C. P. Cowan. Child Development Abstracts and Bibliography, 1988, 62, 241. (Book Review) Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., & Broberg, A. Associations between parental agreement regarding child-rearing and the characteristics of families and children in Sweden. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1989, 12, 115-129. Lamb, M. E., & Oppenheim, D. Fatherhood and father-child relationships: The last five years of research. In S. Cath, A. Gurwitt, & L. Gunsberg (Eds.), Fathers and their families. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, 1989. (pp. 11-26) Lamb, M. E., & Nash, A. Parent-infant attachment and peer interaction. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development. New York: Wiley, 1989. (pp. 219-245) Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E. & Kimmerly, N. Perceptions of parenthood among adolescent fathers. Pediatrics, 1989, 83, 758-765. Hwang, C.-P., Lamb, M. E., & Broberg, A. The development of social and intellectual competence in Swedish preschoolers raised at home and in out-of-home care facilities. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and life-span development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989 (pp. 105-127). Teti, D. M., & Lamb, M. E. Socioeconomic and marital outcomes of adolescent marriage, adolescent childbirth, and their co-occurrences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1989, 51, 203-212. Broberg, A., Hwang, C.-P., Lamb, M. E., & Ketterlinus, R. D. Child care effects on socioemotional and intellectual competence in Swedish preschoolers. In J. S. Lande, S. Scarr & N. Gunzenhauser (Eds.), Caring for children: Challenge to America. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989 (pp. 49-75).
Lamb, M. E. & Sternberg, K. J. Tagesbetreuung [Daycare]. In H. Keller (Ed.), Handbuch der Kleinkindforschung. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1989 (pp. 587-608). Lamb, M. E. Fathers role or fathers roles? Contemporary Psychology, 1989, 34, 551. Lamb, M. E. Social development. Pediatric Annals, 1989, 18, 292-297. Ketterlinus, R. D., Bookstein, F. L., Sampson, P. D., & Lamb, M. E. Partial least squares analysis in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 1989, 1, 351-371. Lamb, M.E., & Sternberg, K.J. Some thoughts about infant daycare. Annual Report: Research and Clinical Center for Child Development, University of Hokkaido, Sapporo, Japan, 1988-89 (pp. 71-77). Lamb M. E. Biological functionalism and developmental (dis)-continuity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1989, IV, 159-160. Lamb, M. E. New approaches to the study of daycare. Human Nature, 1990, 1, 207-210. Lamb, M. E., & Elster, A. B. Adolescent parenthood. In G. H. Brody & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects. Volume II: Clinical populations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990 (pp. 159-190). Broberg, A., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C.-P. Inhibition: Its stability and correlates in 16-to 20-month-old children. Child Development, 1990, 61, 1153-1163. Elster, A. B., Ketterlinus, R. D. & Lamb, M. E. Association between parenthood and problem behavior in a national sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 1990, 85, 1044-1050. Ketterlinus, R. D., Henderson, S., & Lamb, M. E. Maternal age, sociodemographics, prenatal health and behavior: Influences on neonatal risk status. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 1990, 11, 423-431. MacKinnon, C., Lamb, M. E., Belsky, J., & Baum, C. An affective-cognitive model of mother-child aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 1990, 2, 1-14. Broberg, A., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, P., & Bookstein, F. L. Factors related to verbal abilities in Swedish preschoolers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1990, 8, 335-349. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Do we really know how daycare affects children? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1990, 11, 351-379. Lamb, M. E., & Meyer, D. Fathers of children with special needs. In M. Seligman (Ed.), The family with a handicapped child (Revised edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991 (pp. 151-179).
Lamb, M. E., & Teti, D. M. Parenthood and marriage in adolescence: Associations with educational and occupational attainment. In R.M. Lerner, A.C. Petersen, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Garland, 1991 (pp. 742-745). Lamb, M. E., & Teti, D. M. Childbirth and marriage, adolescent: Associations with long-term marital stability. In R.M. Lerner, A.C. Petersen, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Garland, 1991 (pp.111-114). Lamb, M. E., & Ketterlinus, R. D. Parental behavior, adolescent. In R.M. Lerner, A.C. Petersen, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Garland, 1991 (pp. 735-738). Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. Childbearing, adolescent: Obstetric and filial outcomes. In R.M. Lerner, A.C. Petersen & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Garland, 1991 (pp. 107-110). Lamb, M. E. Foreword. In F. W. Bozett & S. M. H. Hanson (Eds.), Fatherhood and families in cultural context. New York & Heidelberg: Springer, 1991 (pp.ix-xii). Hwang, C-P, Broberg, A., & Lamb, M. E. The Gothenburg child care project. In E.C. Melhuish & P. Moss (Eds.), Day care and the young child: International perspectives. London: Routledge, 1991 (pp. 102-120). Lamb, M. E., Teti, D. M., Nash, A., & Bornstein, M. H. Infancy. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Comprehensive textbook of child psychiatry. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991 (pp. 222-256). Lamb, M. E., Teti, D. M., Sternberg, K., & Malkin, C. M. Child maltreatment and the child welfare system. In F.S. Kessel, M. H. Bornstein, & A. J. Sameroff (Eds.), Contemporary constructions of the child: Essays in honor of William Kessen. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991 (pp. 195-207). Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C-P., Broberg, A., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Bookstein, F. L. Does out-of-home care affect compliance in preschoolers? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1991, 14, 45 -65. Lamb, M. E. & Keller, H. (Eds.) Infant development: Perspectives from German-speaking countries. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991. Lamb, M. E. & Keller, H. Introduction. In M. E. Lamb & H. Keller (Eds.), Infant development: Perspectives from German-speaking countries. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991 (pp. 1-13). Sternberg, K. J. & Lamb, M. E. Can we ignore context in the definition of child maltreatment? Development and Psychopathology, 1991, 3, 87-93.
Ketterlinus, R. D., Henderson, S. H., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of maternal age-at-birth on childrens cognitive development. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 1991, 1, 173-188. Ketterlinus, R. D., Lamb, M. E., & Nitz, K. Developmental and ecological sources of stress among adolescent parents. Family Relations, 1991, 40, 435-441. Lamb, M. E. N is for knowledge and the Nebraska Symposium. Contemporary Psychology, 1991,36, 1044-1046. (Book review) Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M.E. Development in infancy (Third edition). New York: McGraw Hill, 1992. Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J. & Prodromidis, M. Nonmaternal care and the security of infant-mother attachment: A reanalysis of the data. Infant Behavior and Development, 1992, 15, 71-83. Scholmerich, A., & Lamb, M. E. Check-list comportamentali nella ricerca sulle interazione madre-bambino e padro-bambino. [The use of check-lists in research on mother-infant and father infant interaction.] Eta Evolutiva, 1992,41, 77-85. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Establishing the design. Children and Youth Services Review, 1992, 14, 157-165. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Hwang, C-P., & Broberg, A. (Eds.), Child care in context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Sociocultural perspectives on nonparental childcare. In M. E. Lamb, K. J. Sternberg, C-P. Hwang, & A. Broberg (Eds.), Child care in context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992 (pp. 1-23). Partially reprinted as Laccueil du jeune enfant dans son milieu. In B. Pierrehumbert (Ed.), Laccueil du jeune enfant: Politiques et recherches dans les differents pays. [Child care in infancy: Policy and research issues in different countries]. Paris: ESF Editeur, 1992 (pp. 21-38). Partially revised, translated, and reprinted as Tagesbetreuung im kulturellen Kontext. In L. Ahnert (Ed.), Tagesbetreuung fr Kinder unter drei Jahren: Theorien und Tatsachen. [Day care for children under three years: Theories and facts]. Berlin: Huber, 1998 (14-28). Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Ketterlinus, R. D. Childcare in the United States: The modern era. In M. E. Lamb, K. J. Sternberg, C-P. Hwang, & A. Broberg (Eds.), Child care in context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992 (pp. 207-222).
Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Un rexamen du lien entre garde non parentale et scurit de lattachement mre-enfant. [Further examination of the relationship between nonmaternal care and the security of infant-mother attachment.] In B. Pierrehumbert (Ed.), Laccueil du jeune enfant: Politiques et recherches dans les differents pays. [Child care in infancy: Policy and research issues in different countries]. Paris: ESF Editeur, 1992. (pp. 141-149) Ketterlinus, R. D., Henderson, S. H., & Lamb, M. E. Les effets du type de garde, de lemploi maternel et de lestime de soi sur le comportement des enfants. [The effect of type of child care and maternal employment on childrens behavioral adjustment and self-esteem]: In B. Pierrehumbert (Ed.), Laccueil du jeune enfant: Politiques et recherches dans les differents pays. [Child care in infancy: Policy and research issues in different countries]. Paris: ESF Editeur, 1992. (pp. 150-163) Lamb, M. E. Foreword for Human development in cultural context: A third world perspective by A. Bame Nsamenang. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1992.(pp. ix-xi) Ketterlinus, R. D., Lamb, M. E., Nitz, K., & Elster, A. B. Adolescent non-sexual and sexrelated problem behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1992, 7, 431-456. Bornstein, M.H., & Lamb, M.E. (Eds.) Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (Third edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992. Lamb, M.E., Ketterlinus, R.D., & Fracasso, M.P. Parent-child relationships. In M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (Third edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992 (pp. 465- 518). Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Evaluations of attachment relationships by Jewish Israeli day-care providers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1992, 23, 285-299. Nakagawa, M., Lamb, M.E., & Miyake, K. Antecedents and correlates of the Strange Situation behavior of Japanese infants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1992, 23, 300-310 Krispin, O., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. The dimensions of peer evaluation in Israel: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1992, 15, 299-314. Nakagawa, M., Teti, D. M., & Lamb, M. E. An ecological study of child-mother attachments among Japanese sojourners in the United States. Developmental Psychology, 1992, 28, 584-592. Lamb, M. E. Review of Family violence in cross-cultural perspective by David Levinson. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1992, 23, 535-536. (Book review) MacKinnon, C. E., Lamb, M. E., Arbuckle, B., Baradaran, L.P., & Volling, B. The relationship between biased maternal and filial attributions and the aggressiveness of their interactions. Development and Psychopathology, 1992, 4, 403-415.
Lamb, M. E. Les effets de la garde non parentale: Que savons-nous au juste? [ The effects of nonparental childcare: What do we really know?] Apprentissage et Socialisation, 1992, 15, 195-207. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., Krispin, O., & Lorey, F. Effects of domestic violence on childrens behavior problems and depression. Developmental Psychology, 1993, 29, 44-52. Lamb, M. E. Collected essays on infant socialization. Review of Social influences and socialization in infancy. Contemporary Psychology, 1993, 38, 93-94. Lamb, M. E. Naziism, biological determinism, sociobiology, and evolutionary theory: Are they necessarily synonymous? International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1993, 6, 149-152. (Book review) Lamb, M. E. Review of Fatherhood in America: A history by R.L. Griswold & Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development by H. B. Biller. Journal of Marriage and the Family,1993, 55, 1047-1049. Lamb, M. E. (Guest Editor) Birth management and perinatal care: Biosocial perspectives. Human Nature,1993, 4(4), and 1994, 5(1). Guest editorial: 4(4), 323-328. Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. The acquisition of socio-cognitive competence by Nso children in the Bamenda Grassfields of Northwest Cameroon. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1993, 16, 429-441. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Interviewing young victims of child maltreatment. In M. Hovav (Ed.), Sexual abuse of children: The law, investigator, and the court. Tel Aviv, Israel: Shirikova Publishers, 1993 (pp. 109-131). (Translated into Hebrew for publication.) Lamb, M. E. Biological determinism redux: Comment on Silverstein (1993). Journal of Family Psychology, 1993, 7, 301-304. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Knuth, N., Hwang, C.-P., & Broberg, A. G. Peer play and nonparental care experiences. In. H. Goelman & E. V. Jacobs (Eds.), Childrens play in child care settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994 (pp. 37-52). Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Socialization of Nso children in the Bamenda Grassfields of Northwest Cameroon. In. P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994 (pp.133-146). Lamb, M. E. Infant care practices and the application of knowledge. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Applied developmental psychology. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994 (pp. 23-45).
Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Adolescent problem behavior: Issues and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994. Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. Adolescent problem behaviors: An introduction. In R. D. Ketterlinus & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem behavior: Issues and research. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994 (pp. vii-xii). Ketterlinus, R. D., Lamb, M. E., & Nitz, K. A. Adolescent nonsexual and sex-related problem behaviors: Their prevalence, consequences, and co-occurrence. In R. D. Ketterlinus & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem behavior: Issues and research. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994 (pp. 17-39). Lamb, M. E. (Rapporteur) The investigation of child sexual abuse: An interdisciplinary consensus statement. Expert Evidence, 1994, 2, 151-156; Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1994, 3(4), 93-106; Family Law Quarterly, 1994, 28, 151-162; Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 1994, 3, 175-180; BASPCAN News, 15 (September), 12-17; and Child Abuse and Neglect, 1994, 18, 1021-1028. Malkin, C. M., & Lamb, M. E. Child maltreatment: A test of sociobiological theory. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1994, 25, 121-134. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Factors influencing the reliability and validity of statements made by young victims of sexual maltreatment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1994, 15, 255-280. Reprinted in: Sexual abuse interviewing guidebook. Ithaca, NY: New York State Child Protective Services Training Institute, 1997. MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Volling, B. L., Lamb, M. E., Dechman, K., Rabiner, D., & Curtner, M. E. A cross-contextual analysis of childrens social competence: From family to school. Developmental Psychology, 1994, 30, 325-333. Lamb, M. E. Heredity, environment, and the question why? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1994, 17, 751. Fracasso, M. P., Porges, S. W., Lamb, M. E., & Rosenberg, A. A. Cardiac activity in infancy: Reliability and stability of individual differences. Infant Behavior and Development, 1994, 17, 277-284. Lamb, M. E. Review of John Snareys How fathers care for the next generation: A four decade study. Human Development, 1994, 37, 385-387. (Book review). Lamb, M. E. Response to Commentary on Early contact, bonding, and the development of mother-infant relationships. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 1994, 15, 384-385.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., & Lorey, F. The effects of domestic violence on childrens perceptions of their perpetrating and nonperpetrating parents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1994, 17, 779-795. Lamb, M. E. De invloed van de vader op de ontwikkeling van het kind. [The influence of the father on the development of the child]. Familia, 1994, 1, 53-64. [Dutch] Reprinted as: Lamb, M. E. Paternal influences on child development. In M. C.P. van Dongen, G. A. B. Frinking, & M. J. G. Jacobs(Eds.), Changing fatherhood: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Thesis Publishers, 1995. (pp. 145- 157) Prodromidis, M., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Hwang, C. P., & Broberg, A. G. Aggression and noncompliance among Swedish children in center-based care, family day-care, and home care. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1995, 18, 43-62. Haynie, D. L., & Lamb, M. E. Positive and negative facial expressiveness in 7-, 10-, and 13-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 1995, 18, 257-259. Scholmerich, A., Fracasso, M. P., Lamb, M. E., & Broberg, A. G. Interactional harmony at 7 and 10 months of age predicts security of attachment as measured by Q-sort ratings. Social Development, 1995, 4, 62-74. Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Fracasso, M. P. The social worlds of 8- and 12-month-old infants: Early experiences in two subcultural contexts. Social Development, 1995, 4, 194-208. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Making children into competent witnesses: Reactions to the amicus brief in re Michaels. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 1995, 1, 438-449. Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. The force of beliefs: How the parental values of the Nso of Northwest Cameroon shape childrens progress toward adult models. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1995, 16, 629-643. Horowitz, S. W., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T. D., Reiter-Lavery, L., & Krispin, O. Establishing ground truth in studies of child sexual abuse. Expert Evidence, 1995, 4, 42-51. Hwang, C. P., Lamb, M. E., & Sigel, I. (Eds.) Images of childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. Images of childhood: An introduction. In C. P. Hwang, M. E. Lamb, & I. Sigel (Eds.), Images of childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. (pp. 1-12)
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Hershkowitz, I. Child sexual abuse investigations in Israel. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1996, 23, 322-337. Also published as: Child victims and witnesses in Israel: Evaluating innovative practices. B. L. Bottoms & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), International perspectives on child abuse and childrens testimony: Psychological research and law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. (pp. 62-76) Lamb, M. E., Nash, A., Teti, D. M., & Bornstein, M. H. Infancy. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Child and adolescent psychiatry: A comprehensive textbook (Second Edition). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1996. (pp. 241-270) Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., Redlich, A., & Sunshine, N. The relationship between investigative utterance types and the informativeness of child witnesses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1996, 17, 439- 451. Lamb, M. E. Effects of nonparental child care on child development: An update. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 1996, 41, 330-342. Lamb, M. E. Review of Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1996, 58, 526-527. [Book review] Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. Cause and causality in daycare research: An investigation of group differences in Swedish child care. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 1996, 11, 231-245. Lamb, M. E. Review of Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers and adolescents. Social Service Review, 1996, 70, 489-490. [Book review] Lamb, M. E. Fathering in America: New challenges and champions. Contemporary Psychology, 1996, 41, 911. [Book review] Lamb, M. E, Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., & Yudilevitch, L. Effects of investigative utterance types on Israeli childrens responses. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1996, 19, 627-637. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Boat, B., & Everson, M. D. Investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims with and without anatomical dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1996, 20, 1239-1247. Pierrehumbert, B., Ramstein, T., Krucher, R., El-Najjar, S., Lamb, M. E., & Halfon, O. Levaluation du lieu de vie du jeune enfant. Bulletin de Psychologie, 1996, 49, 565-584. Lamb, M. E. Review of Family, justice, and delinquency. Family Relations, 1996, 45, 355. [Book review]
Lamb, M. E. What is selected in group selection? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1996, 19, 786-787. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Hovav, M. Criterion-based content analysis: A field validation study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997, 21, 255-264. Lamb, M. E. Review of The book of David: How preserving families can cost childrens lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1997, 59, 235-236. [Book review] Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) The role of the father in child development (Third edition). New York: Wiley, 1997. Lamb, M. E. Fathers and child development: An introductory overview and guide. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Third edition). New York: Wiley, 1997. (pp. 1-18; 309-313) Lamb, M. E. The development of father-infant relationships. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Third edition). New York: Wiley, 1997. (pp. 104-120; 332-342) Lamb, M. E., & Billings, L. L. Fathers of children with special needs. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Third edition). New York: Wiley, 1997. (pp. 179-190; 356-360) Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. Using multiple informants and crosscultural research to study the effects of domestic violence on developmental psychopathology: Illustrations from research in Israel. In S. S. Luthar, J. A. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. (pp. 417-436) Broberg, A. G., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. The effects of day care on the development of cognitive abilities in eight-year-olds: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 1997, 33, 62-69. Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., Fracasso, M. P., Scholmerich, A., & Larson, C. Playful interaction and the antecedents of attachment: A longitudinal study of Central American and Euro-American mothers and infants. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1997, 43, 24-47. Horowitz, S. W., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T. D., Krispin, O., & Reiter- Lavery, L. Reliability of criteria-based content analysis of child witness statements. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1997, 2, 11-21. Fracasso, M. P., Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Leyendecker, B. The ecology of motherinfant interaction in Euro-American and immigrant Central American families living in the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1997, 20, 207-217.
Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hershkowitz, I., & Orbach, Y. Assessing the credibility of childrens allegations of sexual abuse: Insights from recent research. Learning and Individual Differences, 1997, 9, 175-194. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Thompson, R. A. The effects of divorce and custody arrangements on childrens behavior, development, and adjustment. Expert Evidence, 1997, 5, 83-88, and Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1997, 35, 393-404. Reprinted in: M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in nontraditional families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. (pp. 125-135) Lamb, M. E. Linfluence du pere sur le developpement de lenfant. [Paternal influences on child development]. Enfance, 1997(3), 337-349. Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M. E., Leyendecker, B., & Fracasso, M. P. Mother-infant interactions and attachment security in Euro-American and Central-American immigrant families. Infant Behavior and Development, 1997, 20, 167-176. Leyendecker, B. Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Miranda Fricke, D. Contexts as moderators of observed interactions: A study of Costa Rican mothers and infants from differing socio-economic backgrounds. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1997, 21, 15-34. Lamb, M. E., & Wessels, H. Tagesbetreuung [Daycare]. In H. Keller (Ed.), Handbuch der kleinkindforschung (2 Auflage) [Handbook of child study (2nd edition)]. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1997. (pp. 695 -717) Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., & Scholmerich, A. Studying mother-infant interaction: The effects of context and length of observation in two subcultural groups. Infant Behavior and Development, 1997, 20, 325-337. Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. The relationships among interviewer utterance type, CBCA scores, and the richness of childrens responses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1997, 2, 169-176. Hwang, C. P., & Lamb, M. E. Father involvement in Sweden: A longitudinal study of its stability and correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1997, 21, 621-632. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Yudilevitch, L., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Hovav, M. Effects of introductory style on childrens abilities to describe experiences of sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997, 21, 1133-1146. Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., & Broberg, A. G. Personality development between one and eight years of age in Swedish children with varying child care experiences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1997, 21, 771-794.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. Understanding domestic violence and its effects: Making sense of divergent reports and perspectives. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. W. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to family violence (pp. 121- 156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998. Lamb, M. E. Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates, and consequences. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4) Child psychology in practice (Fifth Edition). New York: Wiley, 1998. (pp. 73- 133) Lamb, M. E., Leyendecker, B. R., Scholmerich, A., & Fracasso, M. P. Everyday experiences of infants in Euro-American and Central-American immigrant families. In M. Lewis & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998. (pp. 113-131) Dawud-Noursi, S., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. The relations among domestic violence, peer relationships, and academic performance. In M. Lewis & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998. (pp. 207- 226) Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood then and now. In A. Booth & N. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998. (pp. 47-52) Lamb, M. E. Revisiting fathers who actively parent. Contemporary Psychology, 1998, 43, 271-272. [Book review] Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998. Lamb, M. E. Assessing parent-infant interaction during the prenatal period: Some cautions. Clinics in Perinatology, 1998, 25 (2), 461-469. Hewlett, B. S., Lamb, M. E., Shannon, D., Leyendecker, B., & Scholmerich, A. Culture and early infancy among Central African foragers and farmers. Developmental Psychology, 1998, 34, 653-661. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Conducting investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1998, 22, 813-823. Lamb, M. E. Mea culpa but caveat emptor! Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1998, 3, 193-194. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Horowitz, D., & Hovav, M. Visiting the scene of the crime: Effects on childrens recall of alleged abuse. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1998, 3, 195-207. Lamb, M. E. Assessments of childrens credibility in forensic contexts. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1998, 7, 43-46.
Lamb, M. E. & Fracasso, M. P. Dimensions du temperament: Physiologie, comportement et perceptions maternelles. [Dimensions of temperament: Physiology, behavior, and maternal perceptions.] In G. M. Tarabulsy, R. Tessier, & A. Kappas (Eds.), Le temperament de lenfant: Cinq etudes. [The childs temperament: Five studies] . Quebec City, QU: Presses de lUniversite du Quebec, 1998. (pp. 77-92). Lamb, M. E. Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives. Contemporary Psychology, 1998, 43, 49-50. [Book review] Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) Parenting and child development in nontraditional families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. Hungarian translation published by Educatio Tarsadalmi Szolgaltato Kozhasznu Tarsasag, Budapest, in November 2008. Lamb, M. E. Parental behavior, family processes, and child development in nontraditional and traditionally understudied families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in nontraditional families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. (pp. 1-14) Lamb, M. E. Nonparental child care. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in nontraditional families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. (pp. 39-55) Leyendecker, B., & Lamb, M. E. Latino families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in nontraditional families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. (pp. 247-262) Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Violent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in nontraditional families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. (pp. 305-325) Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., & Esplin, P. W. Forensic interviews of children. In. A. Memon & R. A. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing. New York and Chichester, England: Wiley, 1999. (pp. 253-277) Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb M. E. (Eds.) Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (Fourth Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Fracasso, M. P. Parent-child relationships: Development in the context of the family. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (Fourth Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. (pp. 411-450) Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. Assessing the accuracy of a childs account of sexual abuse: A case study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1999, 23, 91-98.
Lamb, M. E. Non-custodial fathers and their impact on the children of divorce. In R. A. Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds.), The post-divorce family: Research and policy issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999. (pp. 105-125) Lamb, M. E. Child witnesses: Recent research on childrens accounts of forensically relevant experiences. Applied Developmental Science, 1999, 3, 2-5. Roberts, K. P., & Lamb, M. E. Childrens responses when interviewers distort details during investigative interviews. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1999, 4, 23-31. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., & Baradaran, L. Using a scripted protocol in investigative interviews: A pilot study. Applied Developmental Science, 1999, 3, 70-76. Lamb, M. E. The role of fathers in low-income families. In Children and families in an era of rapid change: Creating a shared agenda for researchers, practitioners and policy makers. Proceedings of Head Starts Fourth National Research Conference (July 9- 12, 1998) (pp. 205-207). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Lamb, M. E. Obituary: Mary D. Salter Ainsworth. American Psychological Society Observer, 1999, 12(5), 32, 34-35. Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Effects of the timing of postevent information on preschoolers memories of an event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1999, 13, 541-559. Dawud-Noursi, S., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. The effects of domestic violence on childrens adjustment at school. Megamot, 1999, XL, 72-102. [Hebrew] Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Horowitz, D. Interviewing at the scene of the crime: Effects on childrens recall of alleged abuse. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2000, 5, 135-147. Lamb, M. E. The effects of quality of care on child development. Applied Developmental Science, 2000, 4, 112-115. Campbell, J. J., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. Early child care experiences and childrens social competence between 1.5 and 15 years of age. Applied Developmental Science, 2000, 4, 166-175. Hewlett, B. S., Lamb, M. E., Leyendecker, B., & Schlmerich, A. Internal working models, trust, and sharing among foragers. Current Anthropology, 2000, 41, 287-297. Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 2000, 71, 127-136. Lamb, M. E. The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage and Family Review, 2000, 29, 23-42.
Reprinted in: E. Peters & R. D. Day (Eds.), Fatherhood: Research, interventions and policies. New York: Haworth, 2000. (pp. 23-42) Marsiglio, W., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. Exploring fatherhood diversity: Implications for conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage and Family Review, 2000, 29, 269-293. Reprinted in: E. Peters & R. D. Day (Eds.), Fatherhood: Research, interventions, and policies. New York: Haworth, 2000. (pp. 269-293) Ahnert, L., Rickert, H., & Lamb, M. E. Shared caregiving: Comparisons between home and child care settings. Developmental Psychology, 2000, 36, 339-351. Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 2000, 38, 297-311. Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2000, 24, 733-752. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. Accuracy of investigators verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior, 2000, 24, 699-707. Cederborg, A.-C., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Investigative interviews of child witnesses in Sweden. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2000, 24, 1355-1361. Hewlett, B. S., Lamb, M. E., Leyendecker, B., & Scholmerich, A. Parental investment strategies among Aka foragers, Ngandu farmers, and Euro-American urban- industrialists. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, & W. Irons (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective. New York: Aldine, 2000. (pp. 155- 178) Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Effects of age and delay on the amount of information provided by alleged sex abuse victims in investigative interviews. Child Development, 2000, 71, 1586-1596. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2000, 62, 1173-1191. Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. Enhancing childrens narratives in investigative interviews. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2000, 24, 1631-1648. Lamb, M. E. Exploring and defining early social ecologies and their impact: Mothers, fathers, families and cultures. Marriage and Family Review, 2000, 30, 119-135. Lamb, M. E. Fathering. In A. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 338- 341). Washington DC and New York: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press, 2000.
Lamb, M. E. Attachment. In A.E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 284-289). Washington, DC and New York: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press, 2000. Ahnert, L., Lamb, M. E., & Seltenheim, K. Infantcare provider attachments in contrasting child care settings I: Group-oriented care before German reunification. Infant Behavior and Development, 2000, 23, 197-209. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. Infantcare provider attachments in contrasting child care settings II: Individual-oriented care after German reunification. Infant Behavior and Development, 2000, 23, 211-222. Scholmerich, A., Broberg, A. G., & Lamb, M. E. Precursors of inhibition and shyness in the first year of life. In R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, consolidation and change. London: Routledge, 2000. (pp. 47- 63) Fouts, H. N., Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. Weaning and the nature of early childhood interactions among Bofi foragers in Central Africa. Human Nature, 2001, 12, 27- 46. Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. The relationship between within-interview contradictions and eliciting interviewer utterances. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2001, 25, 323-333. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. The East German child care system: Associations with caretaking and caretaking beliefs, childrens early attachment and adjustment. American Behavioral Scientist, 2001, 44, 1843-1863. MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E., Hattie, J., & Baradaran, L. P. A longitudinal examination of the associations between mothers and sons attributions and their aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 2001, 13, 69-81. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Davies, G. A., & Westcott, H. L. The Memorandum of Good Practice: Theory versus application. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2001, 25, 669-681. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Horowitz, D. The effects of mental context reinstatement on childrens accounts of sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2001, 15, 235-248. Lamb, M E., & Kelly, J. B. Using the empirical literature to guide the development of parenting plans for young children: A rejoinder to Solomon and Biringen. Family Courts Review, 2001, 39, 365-371. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young childrens responses to free recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 997-1005. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Williams, J. M. G., & Dawud-Noursi, S. The effect of being a victim or witness of family violence on the retrieval of autobiographical memories. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2001, 25, 1427-1437.
Lamb, M .E. Male roles in families at risk: The ecology of child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 2001, 6, 308-311. Lamb, M. E. Foreword. In J. R. Dudley & G. Stones Fathering-at-risk: Helping nonresidential fathers. New York: Springer, 2001. (pp. ix-xi) Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Horowitz, D., & Hovav, M. Can a visit to the scene of the crime improve childrens testimony in sexual abuse cases? In M. Hovav, I. Hershkowitz, & D. Horowitz (Eds.), Young victims and offenders: Questioning and interviewing in the legal process. Tel Aviv: Cherikover, 2001. (pp. 147-167) Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. Protocol based interviews with Israeli children: An evaluation study. In M. Hovav, I. Hershkowitz, & D. Horowitz (Eds.), Young victims and offenders: Questioning and interviewing in the legal process. Tel Aviv: Cherikover, 2001. (pp. 111-146) Lamb, M. E., & Fauchier, A. The effects of question type on self-contradictions by children in the course of forensic interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2001, 15, 483-491. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Horowitz, D. A comparison of mental and physical context reinstatement in forensic interviews with alleged victims of sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2002, 16, 429-441. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Orbach, Y., & Hershkowitz, I. Using a structured interview protocol to improve the quality of investigative interviews. In M. Eisen, J. Quas, & G. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. (pp. 409-436) Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. The effects of forensic interview practices on the quality of information provided by alleged victims of child abuse. In H. L. Westcott, G. M. Davies, & R. Bull (Eds.), Childrens testimony: Psychological research and forensic practice. Chichester, England: Wiley, 2002. (pp. 131-146). Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. Is ongoing feedback necessary to maintain the quality of investigative interviews with allegedly abused children? Applied Developmental Science, 2002, 6, 35-41. Lamb, M. E., Teti, D. M., Bornstein, M. H., & Nash, A. Infancy. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Child and adolescent psychiatry: A comprehensive textbook (Third Edition; 293-323). New York: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Infancy: The magical months. Introductory comments in K. B. Owens Child and adolescent development: An integrated approach. New York: Wadsworth, 2002 (pp. 154-155).
Lamb, M. E. Father involvement and child development: Section preface. In C.S. TamisLeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 91-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Infant-father attachments and their impact on child development. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 93-117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Noncustodial fathers and their children. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 169-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Esplin, P. W. The effects of intensive training and ongoing supervision on the quality of investigative interviews with alleged sex abuse victims. Applied Developmental Science, 2002, 6, 114125. Leyendecker, B. L., Harwood, R. L., Lamb, M. E., & Schlmerich, A. Mothers socialization goals and evaluations of desirable and undesirable everyday situations in two diverse cultural groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2002, 26, 248-258. Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. Emergence and construct validation of the big five factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 2002, 73, 1517-1524. Lamb, M. E. Placing childrens interests first: Developmentally appropriate parenting plans. The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 2002, 10, 98-119. Reprinted in CRC Speak Out for Children, 2003, 18, 11-14, 17-19. Schoelmerich, A., Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M.E., Hewlett, B.S., & Tessier, R. Alltagserfahrungen von 3 Monate alten Suglingen in Nord- und Lateinamerika, Europa und Afrika [Everyday experiences of 3-months old infants in North- and Latin-America, Europe and Africa]. In K. Alt & A. Kemkes-Grottenthaler (Eds.), Kinderwelten: Anthropologie Geschichte Kulturvergleich [Childhood: Anthropology, history, and cross-cultural comparison] (pp. 386-399). Koeln: Boehlau Verlag, 2002. Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. Integrating evolution, culture and developmental psychology: Explaining caregiver-infant proximity and responsiveness in Central Africa and the USA. In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga, & A. Scholmerich (Eds.), Between culture and biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002 (pp. 241-269). Lindsey, E. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Campbell, J., Frabutt, J. M., & Lamb, M. E. Marital conflict and boys peer relationships: The mediating role of mother-son emotional reciprocity. Journal of Family Psychology, 2002, 16, 466-477.
Lamb, M. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Teti, D. M. Development in infancy (Fourth edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., & Cabrera, N. Promoting child adjustment by fostering positive paternal involvement. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Promoting positive child, adolescent, and family development: A handbook of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003. (pp. 211-232) Lamb, M. E., & Garretson, M. E. The effects of interviewer gender and child gender on the informativeness of alleged child sexual abuse victims in forensic interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 2003, 27, 157-171. Lamb, M.. E., & Ahnert, L. Institutionelle Betreuungskontexte und ihre entwicklungspsychologische Relevanz fr Kleinkinder [Institutional care contexts and their developmental relevance to young children]. In H. Keller (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Kleinkindforschung [Handbook of child development] 3.Auflage [3rd edition]. Bern: Huber, 2003. (pp. 525-564) Lamb, M. E. Child development and the law. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Volume 6: Developmental psychology. New York: Wiley, 2003. (pp. 559-577) Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. Developmental issues in relocation cases involving young children: When, whether, and how? Journal of Family Psychology, 2003, 17, 193-205. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. Shared care: Establishing a balance between home and child care settings. Child Development, 2003, 74, 1044-1049. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., Stewart, H., & Mitchell, S. Age differences in young childrens responses to open-ended invitations in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2003, 71, 926-934. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K, J., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. Differences between accounts provided by witnesses and alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2003, 27, 1019-1031. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Fathers influences on childrens development: The evidence from two-parent families. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 2003, 18, 211228. Thierry, K. L., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Awareness of the origin of knowledge predicts child witnesses recall of alleged sexual and physical abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2003, 17, 953-967. Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.
Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement: Pathways, problems, and progress. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. (pp. 1-15) Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., & Hwang, C. P. Internal reliability, temporal stability, and correlates of individual differences in paternal involvement: A 14-year longitudinal study in Sweden. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. (pp. 129-148) Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). The role of the father in child development (Fourth edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Lamb, M. E., & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. The role of the father: An introduction. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Fourth edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. (pp. 1-31) Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. The development and significance of father-child relationships in two-parent families. In M. E. Lamb, (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Fourth edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. (pp. 272-306) Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. Child care and its impact on young children (2-5). In R. E. Tremblay, R. G. Barr, & R. De V. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development (online). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development, 2004, 1-6. available at: http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/Ahnert-LambANGxp.pdf. Published simultaneously in French as: Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. Services la petite enfance et ses impacts sur les jeunes enfants (2 5 ans). En R. E. Tremblay, R. G. Barr, & R. De V. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopdie sur le dveloppement des jeunes enfants [en ligne]. Montral, Qubec: Centre dExcellence pour le developpement des jeunes, 2004, 1-6. Disponible sur le site: http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/Ahnert-LambFRxp.pdf. Sternberg, K. J., Knutson, J. F., Lamb, M. E., Baradaran, L. P., Nolan C., & Flanzer, S. The Child Maltreatment Log: A PC-based program for describing research samples. Child Maltreatment, 2004, 9, 30-48. Aldridge, J., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Bowler, L. Using a human figure drawing to elicit information from alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2004, 72, 304-316. Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Sternberg, K. J. Interviewing youthful suspects in alleged sex crimes: A descriptive analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2004, 28, 423-438.
Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. The effects of rapport-building style on childrens reports of a staged event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2004, 18, 189-202. Ahnert, L., Gunnar, M. R., Lamb, M. E., & Barthel, M. Transition to child care: Associations with infant-mother attachment, infant negative emotion and cortisol elevations. Child Development, 2004, 75, 639-650. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Fathers: The research perspectives. In Supporting fathers: Contributions from the International Fatherhood Summit 2003 (Early Childhood Development: Practice and Reflections, Volume 20). The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation, 2004. (pp. 44-76) Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. Recent research on childrens testimony about experienced and witnessed events. Developmental Review, 2004, 24, 440-468. Lamb, M. E. Developmental theory and public policy: A cross-national perspective. In H. Goelman, S. K. Marshall, & S. Ross (Eds.), Multiple lenses, multiple images: Perspectives on the child across time, space and disciplines. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. (pp. 122-146) Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 2004, 75, 1806-1820. Fouts, H. N., Lamb, M. E., & Hewlett, B. S. Infant crying in hunter-gatherer cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2004, 27, 462-463. Lamb, M. E. Socio-emotional development and early schooling: experimental research. Prospects, 2004, 34, 401-409. Lamb, M. E. Testimony, childrens competence for. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 2, 1085-1086) Lamb, M. E. Bonding, parent-child. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 169-170) Lamb, M. E. Forensic interviewing. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 477-479) Lamb, M. E. Eyewitness testimony. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, 433-434) Lamb, M. E. Day care: Measuring quality of care. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 322-324)
Lamb, M. E. Attachment, child-parent. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 127-129) Lamb, M. E. Parenting, divorce and. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 2, pp. 794-796) Fouts, H. N., & Lamb, M. E. Ethical issues in cross-cultural research. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 409-412) Lamb, M. E. Day care: Effects on child development. In C. B. Fisher & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 320-322) Lamb, M. E., & Thierry, K. L. Understanding childrens testimony regarding their alleged abuse: Contributions of field and laboratory analog research. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science. Oxford, UK and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2005. (pp. 489 508) Day, R. D., Lewis, C., OBrien, M., & Lamb, M. E. Emerging theories, constructs, and topics in the study of father involvement. In V. Bengston, A. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. DilworthAnderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. (pp. 341-351, 360-365) Lamb, M. E. Attachments, social networks, and developmental contexts. Human Development, 2005, 48, 108-112. Japanese translation published in 2007. Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.). Developmental science: An advanced textbook (Fifth edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Korean translation published as [Developmental Science]. (K. Kwak and the SNU Developmental Psychology Laboratory, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Hakjisa, 2009. Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. The role of parent-child relationships in child development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (Fifth edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. (pp. 429 - 468) Fouts, H. N., Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. Parent-offspring conflicts among the Bofi farmers and foragers of Central Africa. Current Anthropology, 2005, 46, 29-50. Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental, and cultural perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine/Transaction, 2005.
Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. Recent research and emerging issues in the study of huntergatherer childhoods. In B. S. Hewlett & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental, and cultural perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine/Transaction, 2005. (pp. 3 - 18) Lamb, M. E. Introduction to Part IV. In B. S. Hewlett & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental, and cultural perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine/Transaction, 2005. (pp. 285 287) Fouts, H. N., & Lamb, M. E. Weanling emotional patterns among the Bofi foragers of Central Africa: The role of maternal availability and sensitivity. Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental, and cultural perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine/Transaction, 2005. (pp. 309 321) Lamb, M. E., & Hewlett, B. S. Reflections on hunter-gatherer childhood. In B. S. Hewlett & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental, and cultural perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine/Transaction, 2005. (pp. 407 415) Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Guterman, E., Abbott, C. B., & Dawud-Noursi, S. Adolescents perceptions of attachments to their mothers and fathers in families with histories of domestic violence: A longitudinal perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2005, 29, 853869. Oates, J., Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Parenting and attachment. In S. Ding & K. Littleton (Eds.), Children's personal and social development (pp. 11-51). Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Roopnarine, J. L., Fouts, H. N., Lamb, M. E., & Lewis-Elligan T. Y. Mothers' and fathers' behaviors toward their 3-4 month-old infants in low-, middle-, and upper-socioeconomic African American families. Developmental Psychology, 2005, 41, 7213-732. Lamb, M. E. Dveloppement socio-motionnel et scolarisation prcoce: Recherches exprimentale. In J.- J. Ducret (Ed.), Constructivisme et education (II): Scolariser la petite enfance? (Vol. 1. pp 257-267). Genve, Suisse: Service de la Recherche en Education (SRED), 2005. Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. Trends in childrens disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2005, 29, 1203-1214. Carter, S. C., Ahnert, L., Grossmann, K. E., Hrdy, S. B., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S. W., & Sachser, N. (Eds.), Attachment and Bonding: A New Synthesis (Dahlem Workshop Report 92). Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Carter, S. C., Ahnert, L., Grossmann, K. E., Hrdy, S. B., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S. W., & Sachser, N. Introduction. In S. C. Carter, L. Ahnert, K. E. Grossmann, S. B. Hrdy, M. E. Lamb, S. W. Porges, & N. Sachser (Eds.), Attachment and Bonding: A New Synthesis (Dahlem Workshop Report 92). Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2005. (pp. 1-8)
Kraemer, G. W. (on behalf of M. E. Lamb, G. A. Liotti, K. Lyons-Ruth, G. Meinlschmidt, A. Scholmerich, M. Steele, & C. Travarthen). Group report: Adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. In S. C.Carter, L. Ahnert, K. E. Grossmann, S. B. Hrdy, M. E. Lamb, S. W. Porges, & N. Sachser (Eds.), Attachment and Bonding: A New Synthesis (Dahlem Workshop Report 92). Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2005. (pp. 429-474). Thierry, K., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Pipe, M. E. Developmental differences in the function and use of anatomical dolls during interviews with alleged sexual abuse victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2005, 73, 1125-1134. Trinder, L., & Lamb, M. E. Measuring up? The relationship between correlates of childrens adjustment and both family law and policy in England. Louisiana Law Review, 2005, 65, 1509-1537. Lamb, M. E., & Brown, D. A. Conversational apprentices: Helping children become competent informants about their own experiences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2006, 24, 215-234. Sternberg, K. J., Baradaran, L. P., Abbott, C. B., Lamb, M. E., & Guterman, E. Type of violence, age, and gender differences in the effects of family violence on childrens behavior problems: A mega-analysis. Developmental Review, 2006, 26, 89-112. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Guterman, E., & Abbott, C. B. Effects of early and later family violence on childrens behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal, multiinformant perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2006, 30, 283-306. Lamb, M. E., & Ahnert, L. Nonparental child care: Context, concepts, correlates, and consequences. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4) Child psychology in practice (Sixth Edition). New York: Wiley, 2006. (pp. 950-1016) Bassen, C. R., & Lamb, M. E. Gender differences in adolescents self-concepts of assertion and affiliation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2006, 3, 71-94. Ahnert. L., Pinquart, M., & Lamb, M. E. Security of childrens relationships with non-parental care providers: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 2006, 74, 664-679. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Pipe, M. E., & Horowitz, D. Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2006, 30, 753-769. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Father-child relationships and childrens development: A key to durable solutions? In M. Thorpe & R. Budden (Eds.), Durable solutions: Collected papers from the 2005 Interdisciplinary Dartington Hall Conference. Bristol, UK: Jordans, 2006. (pp. 87-101)
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Warren, A., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. Enhancing performance: Factors affecting the informativeness of young witnesses. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology. Vol 1: Memory for events. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. (pp. 423-446) Pipe, M. E., Thierry, K. S., & Lamb, M. E. The development of event memory: Implications for child witness testimony. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology. Vol 1: Memory for events (pp. 447-472). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. Cederborg, A. C., & Lamb, M. E. How does the legal system respond when children with learning difficulties are victimized? Child Abuse and Neglect, 2006, 30, 537-547. Brown, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. Helping abused children talk about their experiences in forensic interviews. Minerva Medicolegale, 2006, 126, 155-68. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood: Connecting the strands of diversity across time and space. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006. Chuang, S. S., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. Personality development from childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal study of ego-control and ego-resilience in Sweden. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2006, 30, 338-343. Lamb, M. E., & Larsson, A. S. Developmentally appropriate interview techniques. In B. Brooks-Gordon & M. Freeman (Eds.), Law and psychology (pp. 143-153). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Dubowitz, H., Lane, W., Greif, G. L., Jensen, T. K., & Lamb, M. E. Low income African American fathers involvement in childrens lives: Implications for practitioners. Journal of Family Social Work, 2006, 10, 25-41. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Cederborg, A.-C. (Eds.) Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Cederborg, A.-C. Seeking resolution in the disclosure wars: An introduction. In M. E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A. C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 3-10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Stewart, H. L., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Factors associated with nondisclosure of suspected abuse during forensic interviews. In M. E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 77 96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. Individual and family variables associated with disclosure and non-disclosure of child abuse in Israel. In M. E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 65 75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Pipe, M. E., & Horowitz, D. Suspected victims of abuse who do not make allegations: An analysis of their interactions with forensic interviewers. In M. E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 97 113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Orbach, Y., Shiloach, H., & Lamb, M. E. Reluctant disclosers of child sexual abuse. In M. E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 115 - 134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Cederborg, A.-C., Lamb, M. E., & Laurell, O. Delay of disclosure, minimization, and denial when the evidence is unambiguous: A multi-victim case. In M. E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial (pp. 159 173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Hershkowitz, I., Fisher, S., Lamb, M. E., & Horowitz, D. Improving credibility assessment in child sexual abuse allegations: The role of the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2007, 31, 99-110. Hershkowitz, I., Lanes, O., & Lamb, M. E. Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 111-124. Brown, D. A., Pipe, M. E., Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Supportive or suggestive: Do human figure drawings help 5- to 7-year-old children to report touch? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2007, 75, 33-42. Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. Young childrens references to temporal attributes of allegedly experienced events in the course of forensic interviews. Child Development, 2007, 78, 1100-1120. Lamb, M. E. The Approximation Rule: Another proposed reform that misses the target. Child Development Perspectives, 2007, 1, 135-136. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. Structured forensic interview protocols improve the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2007, 31, 1201-1231. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Abbott, C. B. Does the type of prompt affect the accuracy of information provided by alleged victims of abuse in forensic interviews? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2007, 21, 1117-1130.
Fouts, H., Roopnarine, J. L., & Lamb, M. E. Social experiences and daily routines of African American infants in different socioeconomic contexts. Journal of Family Psychology, 2007, 21, 655-664. Lamb, M. E. Improving the quality of parent-child contact in separating families. In M. Maclean (Ed.), Parenting after partnering: Containing conflict after separation. Oxford and Portland OR: Hart Publishing, 2007. (pp. 11-28) Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., & Horowitz, D. Victimization of children with disabilities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2007, 77, 629-635. Cederborg, A. C., La Rooy, D., & Lamb, M. E. Repeated interviews with children who have intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 2008, 21, 103-113. Lamb, M. E. A view from abroad. Economic and Political Weekly (India), 2008 (Feb 2), 43(5), 40-41. Reprinted in M. V. Nadkarni & R. S. Deshpande (Eds.), Social science research in India: Institutions and structure (pp. 221-225). New Delhi: Academic Foundation. Keselman, O., Cederborg, A. C., Lamb, M. E., & Dahlstrom, O. Mediated communication with minors in asylum-seeking hearings. Journal of Refugee Studies, 2008, 21, 103-116. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Chichester, UK and Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008. Lamb, M. E. The many faces of fatherhood: Some thoughts about fatherhood and immigration. In S. S. Chuang & R. P. Moreno (Eds.), On new shores: Understanding immigrant fathers in North America (pp. 7 24). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. Brown, D., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M.-E., & Orbach, Y. Pursuing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: Forensic interviews with child victims and witnesses of abuse. In M. L. Howe, G. S. Goodman, & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Stress, trauma, and childrens memory development: Neurobiological, cognitive, clinical, and legal perspectives ( pp. 267-301). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Cederborg, A. C., & Lamb, M. E. Interviewing alleged victims with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 2008, 52, 49-58. Cederborg, A. C., & Lamb, M. E. The need for systematic and intensive training of forensic interviewers. In T. I. Richardson & M. V. Williams (Eds.), Child abuse and violence. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008. (pp. 1 17)
La Rooy, D., & Lamb, M. E. What happens when young witnesses are interviewed more than once? Forensic Update, 2008, Issue 95 (Autumn), 25-28. Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C., & Lamb, M. E. Who stays and who leaves? Father accessibility across childrens first 5 years. Parenting, 2009, 9, 78-100. Cyr, M., & Lamb, M. E. Assessing the effectiveness of the NICHD investigative interview Protocol when interviewing French-speaking alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Quebec. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2009, 33, 257-268. Brown, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. A two-way street: Supporting interviewers in adhering to best practice recommendations and enhancing childrens capabilities in forensic interviews. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. (pp. 299-325) La Rooy, D., Lamb, M. E., and Pipe, M.-E. Repeated interviewing: A critical evaluation of the risks and potential benefits. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. (pp. 327-361) Lamb, M. E. and colleagues. Appendix: The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. (pp. 531-545) Lamb, M. E. & Bougher, L. D. How does migration affect mothers and fathers roles within their families? Reflections on some recent research. Sex Roles, 2009, 60, 611-614. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Aldridge, J., Pearson, S., Stewart, H. L., Esplin, P. W., & Bowler, L. Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances the quality of investigative interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Britain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009, 23, 449-467. Lyon, T., Lamb, M. E., & Myers, J. The value of the NICHD Protocol has been well established and recognized. Letter to the Editor. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2009, 33, 71-74. Cederborg, A. C., Danielson, H., La Rooy, D., & Lamb, M. E. Repetition of contaminating question types when children and youths with learning disabilities are interviewed about abuse experiences. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 2009, 53, 440-449. Larsson, A., & Lamb, M. E. Making the most of information-gathering interviews with children. Infant and Child Development, 2009, 18, 1-16. Fouts, H. N., & Lamb, M. E. Cultural and developmental variation in toddlers interactions with other children in two small-scale societies in Central Africa. European Journal of Developmental Science, 2009, 3, 389-407.
Lamb, M. E., & Kelly, J. B. Improving the quality of parent-child contact in separating families with infants and young children: Empirical research foundations. In R. M. GalatzerLevy, L. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. (pp. 187-214) Teoh, Y. S., Yang, P. J., Lamb, M. E., Larsson, A. Do human figure diagrams help alleged victims of sexual abuse provide elaborate and clear accounts of physical contact with alleged perpetrators? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2010, 24, 287-300. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). The role of the father in child development (Fifth edition). Hoboken NJ: Wiley, 2010. Lamb, M. E. How do fathers affect childrens development?: Let me count the ways. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Fifth edition; pp. 1-26). Hoboken NJ: Wiley, 2010. Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. The development and significance of father-child relationships in twoparent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Fifth edition; pp. 94-153). Hoboken NJ: Wiley, 2010. Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. Biases in judging victims and suspects whose statements are inconsistent. Law and Human Behavior, 2010, 34, 46-48. Lamb, M. E. The changing landscape for research support in British universities. APS Observer, 2010, 23(5), 19-20. Lamb, M. E., & Malloy, L. C. The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: Looking back and moving forward. The Advocate, 2010, 33(1), 9-13. Thierry, K. L., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M.E., & Spence, M. J. The flexibility of source-monitoring training: Reducing young childrens source confusions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2010, 24, 626-644. Lamb, M. E., & Freund, A. M. (Eds.). Handbook of life-span development, Volume 2: Social and emotional development (Editor-in-Chief: Richard M. Lerner). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. Freund, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Introduction. In M. E. Lamb & A. M. Freund (Eds.), (2010). Handbook of life-span development, Volume 2: Social and emotional development (Editor-in-Chief: Richard M. Lerner). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. (pp. 1-8) Ahnert, L. & Lamb, M. E. ffentliche Tagesbetreuung auf dem Prfstand entwicklungs psychologischer Forschung [Public child care on trial by research in developmental psychology]. In H. Keller (Ed.), Handbuch fr Kleinkindforschung (4 Auflage) [Handbook of child study; 4th. Edition] (pp. 330-364). Bern: Huber, 2010. Teoh, Y-S. & Lamb, M. E. Preparing children for investigative interviews: Rapport-building, instruction, and evaluation. Applied Developmental Science, 2010, 14, 154-163.
Keselman, O., Cederborg, A. - C., Lamb, M. E., & Dahlstrm, O. Asylum seeking minors in interpreter-mediated interviews: What do they say and what happens to their responses? Child and Family Social Work, 2010, 15, 325-334. Roberts, K. P., & Lamb, M. E. Reality-monitoring characteristics in confirmed and doubtful allegations of child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2010, 24, 1049-1079. LaRooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 2010, 16, 373-392. Lamb, M. E. The evolution of childhood [Invited Presidential Column]. APS Observer, 2010, 23(11), 3, 16-17. Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Developmental science: An advanced textbook (6th edition). New York: Taylor and Francis, 2011. Reprinted as M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Cognitive development: An advanced textbook. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011, and M. E. Lamb & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Social and personality development: An advanced textbook. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. The role of parent-child relationships in child development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (6th edition). New York: Taylor and Francis, 2011. (pp. 469-517) Malloy, L. C., Lamb, M. E., & Katz, C. Children and the law: Examples of applied psychology in action. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (6th edition). New York: Taylor and Francis, 2011. (pp. 645-686) Lamb, M. E., & Bornstein, M. H. Social and personality development: An introduction and guide. In M. E. Lamb & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Social and personality development: An advanced textbook. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. Neural, physical, motor, perceptual, cognitive, and language development: An introduction and guide. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Cognitive development: An advanced textbook. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Lamb, M. E. Unraveling the significance of human childhood. [Book review] American Scientist, 2011, 99, 68. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. Child care and its impact on young children (25). In J. Bennett (topic Ed.); R. E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, R. De V. Peters, & R. G. Barr (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development; 2011:1-6. Available at: http://www.childencyclopedia.com/documents/Ahnert-LambANGxp2.pdf. Accessed [insert date].
Lamb, M. E., La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Katz, C. (Eds.) Childrens testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (Second edition). Chichester: Wiley, 2011. Malloy, L. C., La Rooy, D. J., Lamb, M. E., & Katz, C. Developmentally sensitive interviewing for legal purposes. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Childrens testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (Second edition, pp. 1-13). Chichester: Wiley, 2011. Lamb, M. E., Malloy, L. C., & La Rooy, D. J. Setting realistic expectations: Developmental characteristics, capacities, and limitations. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Childrens testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (Second edition; pp. 15-48). Chichester: Wiley, 2011. La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. The development of memory in childhood. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Childrens testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (Second edition; pp. 49-68). Chichester: Wiley, 2011. Malloy, L. C., La Rooy, D. J., & Lamb, M. E. Facilitating effective participation by children in the legal system. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Childrens testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (Second edition; pp. 423-429). Chichester: Wiley, 2011. Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S., & Lamb, M. E. Expected consequences of disclosure revealed in investigative interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 2011, 15, 8-19. Peixoto, C. E., Ribeiro, C., & Lamb, M. E. Forensic interview protocol in sexual abuse: Why and what for? In T. Magalhaes (Ed.), To improve the management of child abuse and neglect (pp. 133-159). Porto: Portuguese Society for the Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (SPECAN), 2011. LaRooy, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. What happens when interviewers ask repeated questions in forensic interviews with children alleging abuse? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2011, 26, 20-25. LaRooy, D. A., Lamb, M. E., & Memon, A. Forensic interviews with children in Scotland: A survey of interview practices among police. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2011, 26, 26-34. Zaff, J. F., Kawashima-Ginsberg K., Lin E. S., Lamb M. E., Balsano, A., & Lerner, R. M. Developmental trajectories of civic engagement across adolescence: Disaggregation of an integrated construct. Journal of Adolescence, 2011, 34, 1207-1220.
Fouts, H. N., Roopnarine, J. L., Lamb, M. E., & Evans, M. Infant social interactions with multiple caregivers: The importance of ethnicity and socio-economic status. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2012, 43, 331-351. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., La Rooy, D. J., & Pipe, M.-E. A case study of witness consistency and memory recovery across multiple investigative interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2012, 26, 118-129. Lamb, M. E. Critical analysis of research on parenting plans and childrens well-being. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drodz (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. (pp. 214-243) Katz, C., Hershkowitz, I., Malloy, L. C., Lamb, M. E., Atabaki, A., & Spindler, S. Non-verbal behaviour of children who disclose or do not disclose child abuse in investigative interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2012, 36, 12-20. Brown, D., Pipe, M.-E., Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E. & Orbach, Y. How do body diagrams affect the accuracy and consistency of children's reports of bodily touch across repeated interviews? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2012, 26, 174-181. Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Katz, C., & Horowitz, D. The development of communicative and narrative skills among preschoolers: Lessons from forensic interviews about child abuse. Child Development, 2012, 83, 611-622. Lamb, M. E. British universities face funding woes. APS Observer, 2012, 25(4), 31-32. Fouts, H. N., Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. A bio-cultural approach to breastfeeding interactions in Central Africa. American Anthropologist, 2012, 114, 123-136. Lamb, M. E. Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting childrens adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 2012, 16, 98-111. Lamb, M. E., & Malloy, L. C. Child development and the law. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (2nd edition). Volume 6: Developmental psychology (pp. 571-593). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. Spencer, J. R., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Children and cross-examination: Time to change the rules? Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012. Lamb, M. E. A wasted opportunity to engage with the literature on the implications of attachment research for family court professionals. Family Court Review, 2012, 50, 481485. La Rooy, D., Nicol, A., Halley, J., & Lamb, M. E. Joint investigative interviews with children in Scotland. The Scots Law Times, 2012, 18, 163-172.
Brown, D. A., Lewis, C. N., Lamb, M. E., & Stephens, E. The influences of delay and severity of intellectual disability on event memory in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2012, 80, 829-841. Lamb, M. E. Non-parental care and emotional development. In S. Pauen (Ed.), Early childhood development and later outcome (pp. 168-179). New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Lamb, M. E. Taking science to court. APS Observer, 2012, 25(9). Braver, S. L., & Lamb, M. E. Marital dissolution. In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (3nd ed., pp. 487-516). New York: Springer, 2013. Teoh, Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. Interview demeanor in forensic interviews of children. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2013, 19, 145-159. Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. Father-child relationships. In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement (2nd ed.; pp. 119-134). New York: Psychology Press, 2013. Shwalb, D. W., Shwalb, B. J., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.) Fathers in cultural context. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2013. Shwalb, D. W., Shwalb, B. J., & Lamb, M. E. Introduction. In D. W. Shwalb, B. J. Shwalb, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Fathers in cultural context (pp. 3-14). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2013. Li, X., & Lamb, M. E. Fathers in Chinese culture. In D. W. Shwalb, B. J. Shwalb, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Fathers in cultural context (pp. 10-41). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2013. Shwalb, D. W., Shwalb, B. J., & Lamb, M. E. Final thoughts, comparisons, and conclusions. In D. W. Shwalb, B. J. Shwalb, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Fathers in cultural context (pp. 385-399). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2013. Lamb, M. E. Early experience, neurobiology, plasticity, vulnerability, and resilience. In D. Narvaez, J. Panksepp, A. N Schore, & T. R. Gleason (Eds.), Human nature, early experience and human development: From research to practice and policy (pp. 68-73). New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. La Rooy, D. J., Brown, D. & Lamb, M. E. Suggestibility and witness interviewing. In A. Ridley, F. Gabbert, & D. J. La Rooy (Eds.), Investigative suggestibility: Theory, research and applications (pp. 197-216). Oxford UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Lamb, M. E. The changing faces of fatherhood and father-child relationships: From fatherhood as status to father as dad. In M. A. Fine & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories: A content-based approach (pp. 87-102). New York: Routledge, 2013.
Lamb, M. E. Inaugural editorial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2013, 19, 1-2. Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Abbott, C. B., & Stewart, H. L. Do case outcomes change when investigative interviewing practices change? Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 2013, 19, 179-190. Brubacher, S. P., Malloy, L. C., Lamb, M. E., & Roberts, K. P. How do interviewers and children discuss individual occurrences of alleged repeated abuse in forensic interviews? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2013, 27, 443-450. Lamb, M. E., & Sim, M. P. Y. Developmental factors affecting children in legal contexts. Youth Justice, 2013, 13, 131-144. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., & Lyon, T. D. Interviewing victims and suspected victims who are reluctant to talk. APSAC Advisor, 2013, 25(4), 17-19. Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Tasker, F., Lamb, M. E., & Golombok, S. (2013). Gay, lesbian and heterosexual adoptive families: Family relationships, child adjustment and adopters experiences. London: British Association for Adoption & Fostering. Whitelock, C. F., Lamb, M. E., & Rentfrow, P. J. Overcoming trauma: Psychological and demographic characteristics of child sexual abuse survivors in adulthood. Clinical Psychological Science, 2013, 1, 351-362. Brown, D. A., Lamb, M. E., Lewis, C. N., Pipe, M.-E., Orbach, Y., & Wolfman, M. The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: An analogue study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2013, 19, 367-382. Van Gijn, E. L., & Lamb, M. E. Alleged sex abuse victims' accounts of their abusers' modus operandi. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 2013, 3, 133-149. Ahern, E. C., & Lamb, M. E. Child sexual abuse. Community Care Inform. http://www.ccinform.co.uk/articles/2007/08/24/1612/sexual+abuse.html?keywords=sexu al+abuse&subquerykeywords=&categoryname=all&topics=16269&gwa_searchtype=tab bedsearch Ahern, E. C., & Lamb, M. E. Guide to child investigative interviewing. Community Care Inform. http://www.ccinform.co.uk/articles/2013/06/20/7711/guide+to+child+investigative+inter viewing.html?keywords=sexual+abuse&subquerykeywords=ahern&categoryname=guid es&topics=16269&gwa_searchtype=tabbedsearch Lamb, M. E. Foreword. In H. Keller & H. Otto (Eds.), Different faces of attachment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press.
Cederborg, A.-C., Alm, C., Da Silva Nises, D. L., & Lamb, M. E. Investigative interviewing of alleged child abuse victims: An evaluation of a new training program for investigative interviewers. Police Practice and Research, in press. Sim, M. P. Y., & Lamb, M. E. Childrens disclosure of child sexual abuse: How motivational factors affect linguistic categories related to deception detection. Psychology, Crime & Law, in press. Cyr, M., Dion, J., Hershkowitz, I., & Lamb, M. E. Laudition de mineurs tmoins ou victimes: lefficacit du protocole du NICHD. Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique et Scientifique, in press. Golombok, S. E., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children's psychological adjustment. Child Development, in press. Jennings, S., Mellish, L., Tasker, F., Lamb, M. E. & Golombok, S. E. Why adoption? Gay, lesbian and heterosexual adoptive parents reproductive experiences and reasons for adoption. Adoption Quarterly, in press. Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S. P., & Lamb, M. E. Because she's one who listens": Children discuss disclosure recipients in forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment, in press. Lamb, M. E. (Vol. Ed.), Lerner, R. M. (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th edition; Volume 3), Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken NJ: Wiley, in press. Lamb, M. E. Unraveling the processes that underlie social, emotional, and personality development: A preliminary survey of the terrain. In M. E. Lamb (Vol. Ed.), R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th edition; Volume 3), Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken NJ: Wiley, in press. Lamb, M. E., Malloy, L. C., Hershkowitz, I., & La Rooy, D. Children and the law. In M. E. Lamb (Vol. Ed.), R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th edition; Volume 3), Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken NJ: Wiley, in press. Fagan, J. F., Day, R., Lamb, M. E. & Cabrera, N. J. Should researchers conceptualize differently the dimensions of parenting for fathers and mothers? The Journal of Family Theory and Review, in press. Andrews, S. J., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of age and delay on responses to repeated questions in forensic interviews with children alleging sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior, in press.
Wachi, T., Watanabe, K., Yokota, K., Otsuka, Y., Kuraishi, H., & Lamb, M. E. Police interviewing styles and confessions in Japan. Psychology, Crime, and Law, in press. Lamb, M. E. Dangers associated with the avoidance of evidence-based practice. Family Court Review, in press. Lamb, M. E. Drawn into the life of crime: Learning from, by, and for child victims and witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, in press. Huang, C. Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. Are Chinese children more compliant? - Examination of cultural differences in observed maternal control and child compliance. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, in press.
Papers Presented to Scientific and Professional Conventions or Conferences Tracy, R. L., Lamb, M. E., & Ainsworth, M. E. Proximity seeking in the first year as related to attachment. Paper presented to the Southeastern Division of the Society for Research in Child Development, Chapel Hill, NC, March 1974. Lamb, M. E. Infants, fathers, and mothers: Interaction at eight-months-of-age in the home and in the laboratory. Paper presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, April 1975. Lamb, M. E. Infant attachment to mothers and fathers. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO, April 1975. Lamb, M. E. The one-year-olds interaction with its parents. Paper presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, April 1976. Lamb, M. E. The effects of stress on the parental preferences of one-year-olds. Paper presented to the XXIst International Congress of Psychology, Paris, July 1976. Lamb, M. E. The effects of ecological variables on parent-infant interaction. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1977. Lamb, M. E. Development and function of parent-infant relationships in the first two years of life. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1977. Lamb, M. E. Effective parenting in contemporary America: Some cautions and some prescriptions. Paper presented to a Conference on Effective Parenting, New Orleans, LA, April 1977. Lamb, M. E. The influence of the infant on marital quality and family interaction during the prenatal, paranatal, and infancy period. Paper presented to the Conference on Contributions of the Child to Marital Quality and Family Interaction Across the Lifespan, University Park, PA, April 1977. Lamb, M. E., Suomi, S. J., & Stephenson, G. R. (Co-organizers) Methodological problems in the study of social interaction. Study group that met in Madison, WI, July 1977, under the auspices of the Society for Research in Child Development, and the financial support of the Foundation for Child Development. Lamb, M. E. Social interaction in triads: Mother, father, and infant. Paper presented to the study group on Methodological Problems in the Study of Social Interaction, Madison, WI, July 1977. Lamb, M. E. The relationships between mothers, fathers, infants, and siblings in the first two years of life. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Pavia (Italy), September 1977.
Frodi, A. M. Lamb, M. E., Leavitt, L. A., & Donovan, W. L. Fathers and mothers responses to infant smiles and cries. Poster presentation to the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Philadelphia, PA, October 1977. Lamb, M. E. Moderator of workshop on The problems of single parents and working mothers families at the General Mills American Family Forum on Parenting -The Crucial years, Washington, DC, October 1977. Lamb, M. E. Family boundary and stress issues in child/human development, psychiatry, sociology, and family studies: What are the shared issues and problems? Invited address to a Conference on family boundaries: Research and therapy, Madison, WI, October 1977. Lamb, M. E., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Owen, M. T. The changing American family and its implications for infant social development. Paper presented to the ETS Conference on The Social Network of the Developing Infant, Princeton, NJ, December 1977. Lamb, M. E. The fathers role in the attainment and maintenance of infant mental health. Invited address to the Michigan Infant Mental Health Association, Ann Arbor, MI, March 1978. Lamb, M. E. Parent-infant bonding. Invited address to the Michigan State Medical Society Conference on Maternal and Perinatal Health, Dearborn, MI, March 1978. Stevenson, M. B., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of the caretaking environment on infant cognitive competence. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Providence, RI, March 1978. Lamb, M. E. Observational analyses of sibling relationships in infancy. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Providence, RI, March 1978. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Leavitt, L. A., & Donovan, W. L. Fathers and mothers responses to the signals and characteristics of young infants. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Providence, RI, March 1978. Maurer, G. F., & Lamb, M. E. Personality characteristics of early-treated children with PKU and the personality characteristics of their parents. Paper presented to the fourteenth General Medical Conference, PKU Collaborative Study, Stateline, NV, March 1978. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Baby responsiveness in eight-and fourteen-year-olds as assessed by observational and psychophysiological measures. Paper presented to the Iowa Academy of Sciences, Cedar Falls, Iowa, April 1978. Lamb, M. E. Invited consultant at an interdisciplinary workshop on the observational study of social interaction, Munich (Germany), July 1978. Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Owen, M. T. The fathers role in nontraditional family contexts: Direct and indirect effects. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Toronto, September 1978.
Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Psychophysiological responses to infant signals in abusive mothers and mothers of premature infants. Paper presented to the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Madison, WI, September 1978. Lamb, M. E. The effects of nontraditional family styles on infant social development: Implications for social policy. Invited address to the National Council of Family Relations Convention, Philadelphia, PA, October 1978. Lamb, M. E., & Bronson, S. K. Paternal influences on development in traditional and nontraditional families. Invited address to a conference on Fatherhood and the Male Single Parent, Nebraska Psychiatric Institute, Omaha, NE, November/December 1978. Lamb, M. E. Infant social development: A personal perspective. Guest lecture series, University of Goteborg (Sweden), February 1979. Lamb, M. E. The father-child relationship: Changing conceptions of its nature and potential importance. Invited address to the Merrill-Palmer Institute, Detroit, MI, February 1979. Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. Sex differences in behavioral and psychopysiological responsiveness to infants: A developmental study. Paper presented (on invitation) to the Association for Women in Psychology, Dallas, TX, March 1979. Lamb, M. E. Participant in Peer Interaction Conversation Hour at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, March 1979. Frodi, A. M., Wille, D., & Lamb, M. E. Parents responses to normal and premature infants. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, March 1979. Frodi, A. M., Schima, J., Ohman, R., & Lamb, M. E. Child abusers responses to infant smiles and cries. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, March 1979. Olson, G. M., & Lamb, M. E. Premature infants: Cognitive and social development in the first year of life. Workshop presentation to the Annual Convention of the Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health, Ann Arbor, MI, April 1979. Lamb, M. E., & Goldberg, W. A. The father child relationship: Biological, evolutionary, and social perspectives. Paper presented to an invitational conference on Parental Behavior, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, April 1979. Lamb, M. E. Biological and social contributions to the development of social behavior. Guest lecture series, University of Goteborg (Sweden), October 1979. Lamb, M. C. On the origins of personality and social style. Invited presentation at the ETS Conference on the Family, Princeton, N.J., November/December 1979.
Lamb, M. E. The development of social understanding and social attachments in infancy. Invited presentation to the Seminar on the Development of Infants and Parents, Boston, MA, November 1979. Lamb, M. E. Children in a changing culture: The effects of nontraditional family styles and paternal roles in child development. Invited address to a Conference on Parenthood and Families in the 1980s, Wheelock College, Boston, MA, March 1980. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., & Frodi, M. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in traditional and nontraditional families. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, New Haven, CT, April 1980. Lamb, M. E. Infant social cognition: The origins of early expectations. Paper presented to the Denver Psychobiology Research Group Retreat, Estes Park, CO, May 1980. Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Frodi, M., & Hwang, P. Effects of gender and caretaking role on parent-infant interaction. Paper presented to the Denver Psychobiology Research Group Retreat, Estes Park, CO, May 1980. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development: An overview. Invited public address, School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, July 1980. Lamb, M. E. Co-organizer of and participant in SRCD-sponsored study group on Social Policy, Law, and the Father, held at the University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, July 1980. Lamb, M. E. The development of parent-child relationships in infancy. Invited presentation to the International Congress of Psychology, Leipzig (East Germany), July 1980. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development. Invited address to the Board of Jewish Education, Chicago, June 1980. Lamb, M. E. The meaning and measurement of family interaction. Invited address to the National Council on Family Relations, Portland, OR, October 1980. Lamb, M. E. Child abuse: Causes and intervention. Workshop presentation at the School of Social Work, University of Haifa (Israel), November 1980. Lamb, M. E. Attachment, institutionalization, and child custody. Workshop presentation at the School of Social Work, University of Haifa (Israel), November 1980. Estes, D. E., Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., & Dickstein, S. Maternal affective quality and security of attachment at 12 and 19 months. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, April 1981. Frodi, A. M., Murrary, A. D., Lamb, M. E., & Steinberg, J. Behavioral responsiveness to infants in pre-and post-menarcheal girls. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, April 1981.
Lamb, M. E. Child development and social policy. Minicourse offering, School of Social Work, University of Haifa (Israel), June 1981. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. The relationship between stranger sociability, temperament, and social experiences at 12 1/2 and 19 1/2 months of age. Paper presented to the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, MI, April 1981. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Changes in family circumstances and their relationships to the quality of infant-mother attachment: A short-term longitudinal study. Paper presented to the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, MI, April 1981. Lamb, M. E. Fathers, mothers, and childcare in the 1980s. Invited presentation to a conference on Families in transition: Children, work and housework, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1981. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Socioemotional development in a family context. Invited address to a conference on Social connectedness beyond the dyad, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, May 1981. Lamb, M. E. Family bonds, springboards to...... Invited address to the Family Education Conference on Families Alive: Roots and Wings of Relationships, Weber State College, Ogden, UT, September 1981. Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Estes, D., Shoham, R., Lewkowicz, K., & Dvir, R. Security of infant-adult attachment among kibbutz-reared infants. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Austin, TX, March 1982. Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., & Frodi, M. Increased paternal involvement and family relationships. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Austin, TX, March 1982. Dickstein, S., Thompson, R. A., Estes, D., Malkin, C. M., & Lamb, M. E. Social referencing and maternal contributions. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Austin, TX, March 1982. Lamb, M. E. The changing ecology of childhood: Fathers, mothers, and childcare in the 1980s. Invited address to the National Association of School Psychologists, Toronto, March 1982. Lamb, M. E., Sagi, A., Lewkowicz, K., Shoham, R., & Estes, D. Security of infant-mother, -father, and -metapelet attachments in kibbutz-reared infants. Paper presented to the Denver Psychobiology Research Group Retreat, Estes Park, CO, June 1982. Lamb, M. E., Malkin, C. M., & Gaensbauer, T. J. Effects of child abuse on the security of infant-mother attachment. Paper presented to the Denver Psychobiology Research Group Retreat, Estes Park, CO, June 1982.
Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Continuity and change in socioemotional development in the second year. Paper presented to the Denver Psychobiology Research Group Retreat, Estes Park, CO, June 1982. Lamb, M. E., Sagi, A., Lewkowicz, K., Shoham, R., & Estes, D. The effects of kibbutzrearing on the security of infant-mother, -father, and -metapelet attachments in kibbutz-reared infants. Paper presented to the Second International Conference on Kibbutz Studies, New York, June 1982. Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Teenaged fathers and child development. Presentation to the Social Science Research Council Study Group on School-aged Parenthood, Baltimore, June 1982. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Temperamental influences on stranger sociability and the security of attachment. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August 1982. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. Security of attachment and stranger sociability in infancy. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August 1982. Lamb, M. E. The changing role of fathers: Impact on families and children. Invited address to a Special Institute on Family Changes that Affect Children, Kent State University, Kent, OH, September 1982. Lamb, M. E. Mothers, fathers, and children in the 1980s. Address to a Conference on Childcare arrangements in the 1980s, Ministry of Social Affairs, Singapore, January 1983. Lamb, M. E. Effective parenting: Some cautions and some prescriptions. Public lecture organized by the Ministry of Social Affairs, Singapore, February 1983. Lamb, M. E. Parental influences on child development. Public lecture organized by the Ministry of Social Affairs, Singapore, February 1983. Lamb, M. E. Workshop on Attachment and bonding: Conceptual and assessment issues. Child Psychiatric Clinic, Singapore, February 1983. Lamb, M. E. Consultant to workshop on The development of parent education programs. Ministry of Social Affairs, Singapore, February 1983. Lamb, M. E. Consultant to workshop on The longitudinal study on the effects of childcare arrangements on child development. Ministry of Social Affairs, Singapore, February 1983. Lamb, M. E. Mothers, fathers, and childcare in a changing world. Invited Plenary Address to the Second World Congress on Infant Psychiatry, Cannes (France), March/April 1983.
Lamb, M. E. (Chair) Symposium on The origins of nurturance at the biennial convention of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, April 1983. Adams, G. R., Hetherington, E. M., Lamb, M. E., & Parish, T. S. Divorce and changing familial configurations: What effects might they have on children and how can they be ameliorated? Discussion session at the biennial convention of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, April 1983. Malkin, C. M., Lamb, M. E., & Burke, M. The development of social expectations in distress-relief contexts. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, April 1983. Zarbatany, L., & Lamb, M. E. Social referencing as a function of information source: Mothers versus strangers. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, April 1983. Lamb, M. E. Changing patterns of childcare: Effects on children and families. Invited address to the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Snowbird (UT), April 1983. Lamb, M. E. Invited participant in Social Science Research Council Conference on Parenting across the lifespan, Belmont Conference Center, Belmont, MD, May 1983. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development. Invited address to The Fatherhood Forum, New York City, June 1983. Lamb, M. E. Assessing the quality of infant-parent relationships: Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Munich (West Germany), July/August 1983. Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Shoham, R., Lewkowicz, K., & Dvir, R. Development of parent- infant interaction in Israeli kibbutzim. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Munich (West Germany), August 1983. Lamb, M. E. Bonding: Critical time or critical process? Invited presentation to the Utah Perinatal Association, Park City, September 1983. Lamb, M. E. Parents and children in a changing world. Invited plenary address to a joint meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, San Francisco, October 1983. Lamb, M. E. Workshop on Parent-child relationships: Key issues for Pediatricians. American Academy of Pediatrics, San Francisco, October 1983. Lamb, M. E. Assessing the security of attachment using the Strange Situation: Approaches, problems and prospects. Workshop presentation to the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, San Francisco, October 1983.
Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development. Invited presentation to the Select Committee on Families and Children, US House of Representatives, November 1983. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Charnov, E. L. Paternal behavior in humans. Paper presented to the American Society for Zoologists and the Animal Behavior Society, Philadelphia, December 1983. Lamb, M. E. Fathers and children. Workshops offered to staff of the Arizona Department of Economic Security in Phoenix and Tucson, January 1984. Lamb, M. E. Helping parents and children grow together. Invited presentation to the Intermountain Pediatric Society, Salt Lake City, February 1984. Hwang, C.-P., Broberg, A., Frodi, M., & Lamb, M. E. Relationships between quality of childcare and quality of peer play in Swedish infants. Presentation to the International Conference on Infant Studies, New York City, April 1984. Lamb, M. E., & Sagi, A. Fathering in the 1980s and beyond. Invited address to a Conference on The Father/Family Connection: Theory, Research, and Implications for Policy, Practice, and Life, University of Utah School of Social Work, Salt Lake City, April 1984. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development. Workshop presentation to Pediatric Associates of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, May 1984. Lamb, M. E. Invited participant in Social Science Research Council Conference on Child abuse and neglect: Biosocial perspectives, Boston, MA, May 1984. Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. (Co-organizers) Study group on Adolescent Fatherhood, funded by the Society for Research in Child Development, Heber (Utah), May 1984. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development: An overview. Presentation to the Study group on Adolescent Fatherhood, Heber (UT), May 1984. Elster, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Adolescent mother-infant-father relationships. Paper presented to the Society for Pediatric Research, San Francisco, May 1984. Lamb, M. E. The father-child relationship in a changing world. Invited address to the Chicago area Fatherhood Forum, Chicago, June 1984. Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood and institutional policy. Workshop at the Chicago area Fatherhood Forum, Chicago, June 1984. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development. Invited presentation to the conference, Advances in Child Development for Parent Educators, Dominican College, San Rafael, CA, July 1984.
Lamb, M. E. Changing patterns of childcare: Effects on children and families. Invited presentation to a conference on The Child in Social Context, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg (Canada), October 1984. Lamb, M. E. The father-child relationship. Invited workshops at the Arizona Psychological Association Convention, Flagstaff, AZ, October 1984. Lamb, M. E. The changing role of fathers. Keynote address, Ninth Annual Regional Intervention Program Conference, Nashville, TN, October 1984. Lamb, M. E. Child care in a changing world. Keynote address to a conference on Diversity in Family Style: Effects on children, Buffalo, October 1984. Lamb, M. E. Changing patterns of child care and its effects on families and children. Nebraska Wesleyan University Forum, Lincoln, NE, November 1984. Lamb, M. E. The changing role of fathers. Carol Shigetomi Memorial Lecture, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland, OR, January 1985. Lamb, M. E. The changing roles of fathers. Invited presentation to a conference on The Future of Parenting, University of California, Chico, CA, February 1985. Lamb, M. E. Single fathers and their children. Invited presentation to the Child Psychology Forum, Goteborg (Sweden), February 1985. Sagi, A., & Lamb, M. E. Relationships between Strange Situation behaviors and stranger sociability among infants on Israeli kibbutzim. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, April 1985. Hwang, C.-P., Lamb, M. E., Broberg, A., Frodi, A., & Hult, G. Effects of early father participation on later paternal involvement and responsibility. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto , April 1985. Lamb, M. E. Adolescent fatherhood. Invited presentation at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, April 1985. Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood and father-child relationships in a changing world. Keynote address, Fourth Interdisciplinary Symposium on Human Development, The Father in Human Development, University of California-Davis, May 1985. Lamb, M. E., Teti, D. M., Lewkowicz, K. S., & Malkin, C. M. Child maltreatment and the child welfare system. Presentation to Study Group: Rethinking Child Welfare: International Perspectives, Minneapolis, June 1985. Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E., & Ralston, C. Evaluation of a comprehensive adolescent pregnancy program. Presentation to meeting of Program and Evaluation Directors, Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs, Washington, DC, June 1985.
Lewkowicz, K. S., & Lamb, M. E. Naive Israelis evaluations of Strange Situation behavior. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Tours (France), July 1985. Sagi, A. & Lamb, M. E. Is there a congruence between Strange Situation assessments made by trained vs. naive observers: A test of external validity. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Tours (France), July 1985. Lamb, M. E. The emergence of a new American father. Keynote address to the Seattle area Fatherhood Forum, Seattle, WA, September 1985. Lamb, M. E. Adolescent fatherhood. Invited presentation to the Convention of The American Academy of Child Psychiatry, San Antonio, TX, October 1985. Lamb, M. E. The long term effects of beneficial or adverse early life experiences. Invited address to the Fifth ASEAN Forum on Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Singapore, November 1985. Lamb, M. E. Psychosocial aspects of adolescent fatherhood. Invited address to the Fifth ASEAN Forum on Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Singapore, November 1985. Lamb, M. E. The ecology of adolescent parenthood. Invited presentation to a symposium on Ecological approaches to the study of children and families, University of Victoria, Vancouver, March 1986. Lamb, M. E. The changing roles of fathers. Lansdowne Memorial Lecture, University of Victoria, Vancouver, March 1986. Teti, D. M., Lamb, M. E., & Elster, A. B. Long-range educational, financial, and marital consequences of teen marriage in three cohorts of adult males. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Adolescence, Madison, WI, March 1986. Lamb, M. E. Family relations: The changing roles of fathers. Keynote address to the Tulsa Coalition for Parenting Education Annual Spring Event, Tulsa, OK, April 1986. Teti, D. M., & Lamb, M. E. Attachment and caregiving between infants and older siblings. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Los Angeles, April 1986. Malkin, C. M., Lamb, M. E., & Gaensbauer, T. Mother-child interaction: Correlates of maltreatment. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Los Angeles, April 1986. Lamb, M. E. Invited participant, Symposium on Young Unwed Fatherhood, Catholic University, Washington, D.C., October 1986.
Lamb, M. E. The formative role of mother-infant interaction. Invited presentation to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Los Angeles, April 1986. Oppenheim, D., Sagi, A., & Lamb, M. E. Classifications of infant-adult attachment on Israeli kibbutzim in the first year of life and their relation to socio-emotional development four years later. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Los Angeles, April 1986. Lamb, M. E. The determinants of social competence. Invited presentation to the International Conference on The Family in Lifespan Perspective, Berlin, December 1986. Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E., Tavare, J., & Ralston, C. W. The effect of intervention on the health, psychosocial, and parenting outcomes of adolescent mothers and their infants at one year. Paper presented to the Society for Adolescent Medicine, Seattle, WA, March 1987. Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E., Tavare, J., & Ralston, C. W. The effect of intervention on the public costs associated with adolescent parenthood. Paper presented to the Society for Adolescent Medicine, Seattle, WA, March 1987. Lamb, M. E. Contemporary fatherhood. Invited presentation to the Annual Parenting Symposium, Los Angeles, March 1987. Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., Bookstein, F. L., & Broberg, A. Determinants of social competence in Swedish preschoolers. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD, April 1987. Nash, A., & Lamb, M. E. Becoming acquainted with unfamiliar adults and peers in infancy. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD, April 1987. Lamb, M. E. The changing roles of fathers. Keynote address, American Family Therapy Association, Chicago, June 1987. Lamb, M. E. Invited participant, Workshop on Biobehavioral concepts in development, Bethesda, MD, June/July 1987. Lamb, M. E. & Hwang, C.-P. Co-organizers: Symposium on Day care and its effects on families and children. International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Tokyo, July 1987. Hwang, C.-P., Lamb, M. E., & Broberg, A. Day care in Sweden. Paper presented to the International Society for the study of Behavioral Development, Tokyo, July 1987. Teti, D. M., & Lamb, M. E. Socioemotional/marital outcomes associated with adolescent marriage, childbirth, or both. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, New York City, August 1987.
Lamb, M. E. Home and out-of-home influences on the development of social, personality and intellectual competence in Swedish preschoolers. Opening address to the Developmental Section, British Psychological Association, York (England), September 1987. Lamb, M. E. Discussant at Society for Research in Child Development Study Group on The history of child development. Belmont Conference Center, Belmont, MD, October 1987. Lamb, M. E. Invited participant in workshop on The effects of day care. National Center for Clinical Infant programs/National Academy of Science, Washington, DC, October 1987. Lamb, M. E. Child care and the development of social and intellectual competence. Invited address to the Symposium on the Future of Child Care in the United States, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, November 1987. Lamb, M. E. The changing role of fathers. Invited presentation at Center for Early Education and Development Symposium, Omaha, NE, November 1987. Lamb, M. E. Social policy and father involvement. Invited address to Center for Early Education and Development Symposium, Omaha NE, November 1987. Lamb, M. E. Policy implications of Child Care Research. Panelist, National Research Council, Washington, DC, February 1988. Lamb, M. E. Quality of day care in Sweden and its effects on child development. Paper presented to the International Child and Youth Care Conference, Washington, DC, March 1988. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Some thoughts about infant daycare. Paper presented to the American Orthopsychiatric Association, San Francisco, March 1988. Ralston, C. W., Elster, A. B., Lamb, M. E. & Dodd, D. H. Behavior patterns in infants of teen mothers. Western Society for Pediatric Research, Carmel, CA, March 1988. Hwang, C.-P., Broberg, A., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of setting on social competence with peers among Swedish children receiving out-of-home care. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Washington, DC, April 1988. Lamb, M. E. The changing faces of fatherhood. Invited presentation to the Symposium on Effective Parenting, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, June 1988. Lamb, M. E. Fathers, mothers, and child care. NICHD Child Health Day Symposium, Washington, D.C., October 1988. Lamb, M. E. Quality variations in family and center day care. National Conference on Early Childhood Issues, Washington, DC, November 1988.
Lamb, M. E. The changing roles of fathers. Jing Lyman Lecture Series, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, February 1989. Lamb, M. E. High quality childcare inside and outside the family. Keynote address, Durham Day Care Council, Durham, NC, March 1989. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. The effects of out-of-home care on the development of Swedish preschoolers. Invited Workshop, Durham Day Care Council, Durham, NC, March 1989. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Day care and parent-child attachment. Invited Workshop, Durham Day Care Council, Durham, NC, March 1989. Lamb, M. E. Out-of-home care and child development. D. O. Hebb Lecture, McGill University, Montreal (Canada), April 1989. Lamb, M. E. The interface between cognition and emotion in early childhood. Keynote address to a conference on Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior, Greensboro, NC, April 1989. Elster, A. B., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. The association between parental status and problem behavior among female adolescents. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO, April 1989. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Broberg, A., Hwang, C.-P., & Prodromidis, M. Out-of- home care history and compliance in Swedish preschoolers. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO, April 1989. Nakagawa, M., Lamb, M. E., & Miyake, K. The validity of the Strange Situation with Japanese infants: Antecedents and correlates. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO, April 1989. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Knuth, N. Quality of family daycare and the development of peer social skills. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO, April 1989. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. The development of attachment relationships. Training Seminar, Jerusalem MunicipalityDepartment of Community and Family Services, Jerusalem (Israel), June 1989. Broberg, A., Hwang, P., & Lamb, M. E. Sociability, play and out-of-home care experiences. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Jyvaskyla (Finland), July 1989. Hwang, C-P, Broberg, A., & Lamb, M. E. The Gothenburg child care project. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Jyvaskyla (Finland), July 1989.
Lamb, M. E. & Sternberg, K. J. (Co-organizers) Invitational conference on Nonparental Childcare in Historical and Cultural Perspective, Coolfont Conference Center, Berkely Springs, W VA, August 1989. Lamb, M.E. The changing roles of fathers. Gender Studies Lecture Series, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, November 1989. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Dawud, S., Lorey, F., Greenbaum, C., Krispin, O., Lowen, L., Sandler, L., Limor, D., & Musseri, S. The effects of domestic violence on childrens perceptions of their parents. Paper presented to the National Council on Family Relations, New Orleans, LA, November 1989. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Hwang, C.-P., Broberg, A., Prodromidis, M., Ketterlinus, R., & Bookstein, F. L. Families, day care, and the emergence of compliance in Swedish preschoolers. Paper presented to the National Council on Family Relations, New Orleans, LA, November 1989. Lamb, M. E. Discussant: Symposium on The father-child relationship: Anthropological perspectives. Symposium presented to the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, November 1989. Fracasso, M. P., Kimmerly, N., Nakagawa, M. & Lamb, M. E. Cultural and biological influences on infant behavior in the Strange Situation. Paper presented to the Southeastern Conference on Human Development, Richmond, VA, March 1990. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Prodromidis, M., & Ketterlinus, R. D. Effects of nonparental care on childrens development. Paper presented to the Southeastern Conference on Human Development, Richmond, VA, March 1990. Ketterlinus, R. D., Lamb, M. E., Henderson, S. H., Das, R. , & Nitz, K. The adolescent parenthood project: Findings and future directions. Paper presented to the Southeastern Conference on Human Development, Richmond, VA, March 1990. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Dawud, S., Sandler, L., Krispin, O., & Cortez, R. M. The effects of domestic violence on childrens development in Israel. Paper presented to the Southeastern Conference on Human Development, Richmond, VA, March 1990. Ketterlinus, R. D., Henderson, S. H., & Lamb, M. E. The relative effects of young maternal age, intelligence, and sociodemographics on childrens math and reading achievement. Paper presented to the Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta, GA, March 1990. Ketterlinus, R. D., Das, R., Lamb, M. E., & Elster, A. B. The association between problem behaviors and sexual behavior in a national sample of adolescent males and females. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Adolescence, Atlanta, GA, March 1990. Lamb, M. E. Risk factors and the future of families. Keynote address to the Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Program Directors, Salishan, OR, April 1990.
Lamb, M. E. The changing roles of fathers. Invited address to the Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Program Directors, Salishan, OR, April 1990. Lamb, M. E. The effects of daycare on child development. Invited speaker, Early Education and Child Development Interest Group, American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1990. Rosenberg, A., Haynie, D., Scaramella, L., Lamb, M. E. Porges, S., & Fracasso, M. Individual differences in physical and affective functioning in infancy. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Montreal (Canada), April 1990. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Prodromidis, M. On the association between daycare and attachment. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Montreal (Canada), April 1990. Lamb, M. E. & Lancaster, J. B. (Co-organizers) Invitational conference on Birth Management: Cross-cultural and Historical Perspectives. Coolfont Conference Center, Berkely Springs, W VA, May 1990. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C.-P., & Broberg, A. Long-term effects of contrasting early childcare arrangements: The Goteborg childcare project. Paper presented to the International Symposium on Child Care in the Early Years, Lausanne (Switzerland), September 1990. Ketterlinus, R. D., Henderson, S. H., & Lamb, M. E. Non-parental care in the first three years of life and its association with academic achievement and behavior problems in later childhood: Evidence from a national (US) sample. Paper presented to the International Symposium on Childcare in the Early Years, Lausanne (Switzerland), September 1990. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Nonparental childcare: Cross cultural issues and perspectives. Paper presented to the International Symposium on Childcare in the Early Years, Lausanne (Switzerland), September 1990. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E. & Prodromidis, M. Association between nonparental care and the security of infant-mother attachment. Paper presented to the International Symposium on Childcare in the Early Years, Lausanne (Switzerland), September 1990. Lamb, M.E. Overview and future prospects. Closing address to the International Symposium on Childcare in the Early Years, Lausanne (Switzerland), September 1990. Lamb, M. E. Interviewing young victims of sexual maltreatment: An introduction., Division of Youth Investigation, Israeli Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel, December 1990. Lamb, M. E. Evaluating the effectiveness of intensive home-based intervention relative to foster care. Paper presented to an invitational conference on The Evaluation of Child Welfare Reform, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC, February 1991.
Lamb, M. E. Successful parenting in the 1990s. Invited public lecture, Centre for Effective Living, Singapore, March 1991. Lamb, M. E. What research can tell us about effective parenting. Keynote address to the International Seminar on Family Education, National Womens Education Centre, Saitama, Japan, March 1991. Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (Co-organizers) Conference on Problem Behavior in Adolescence. Coolfont Conference Center, Berkeley Springs, WVA, April 1991. Sternberg, K. J., Cortes, R. M., Dawud, S., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., & Krispin, O. Effects of domestic violence on childrens behavior problems. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Dawud, S., Lewensohn, O., Hart, J., Posner, S., Cortes, R. M., Cohen, E., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of domestic violence on childrens adjustment in school. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Scaramella, L. V., Lamb, M. E., Rosenberg, A. A., Haynie, D., & Ducrey, R. A longitudinal assessment of adrenocortical activity in infancy. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Ketterlinus, R. D., Nitz, K., & Lamb, M. E. Adolescent deviance: Stability over time and generations. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Nitz, K., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. Children of adolescent and young adult mothers: Gender differences in the transmission of problem behavior. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Ketterlinus, R. D., Lamb, M. E., & Nitz, K. Sexual and nonsexual risk-taking in a national sample of adolescent males. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Prodromidis, M., Hwang, C. P., Broberg, A., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. A composite measure of aggression for children with and without out-of-home care experiences. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Henderson, S. H., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. The association among childrens behavioral adjustment, maternal employment and attitudes, and childcare arrangements. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Nakagawa, M., Teti, D. M., Lamb, M. E., & Sugaya, S. Japanese mothers and children in the United States: Life stress, parenting, and the security of attachment. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991.
Krispin, O., Sternberg, K. J., Lewensohn, O., Cohen E., & Lamb, M. E. The dimensions of peer evaluation: A cross-cultural perspective. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Socialization values in two generations of Bamenda (Cameroon) Grassfields families. Paper presented to a Workshop on Continuities and Discontinuities in the Cognitive Socialization of Minority Children, Washington, DC, June/July 1991. Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Physical child abuse: Assessment, research, and intervention. Workshop for the Department of Community and Family Services, Municipality of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, June 1991. Esplin, P. W., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Interviewing young victims of sexual abuse. Workshop for the staff of the Israeli National Bureau of Youth Investigation, Herzaliya, Israel, June 1991. Scholmerich, A., Fracasso, M., & Lamb, M. E. Person, Dyade, Situation und Zeit: Zur methodischen Problematik von Interaktionsbeobachtungen. Paper presented to the Fachgruppe Entwicklungspsychologie, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Psychologie, Kln (Germany), September 1991. Scholmerich, A., Genovese, S., & Lamb, M. E. Mtterliche Sensibilitt: Vergleich mikroanalytischer Verhaltensbeobachtung mit globalen Ratings bei 8-monatigen Kindern. Paper presented to the Fachgruppe Entwicklungspsychologie, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Psychologie, Kln (Germany), September 1991. Lamb, M. E. Individual differences in infant behavior and development: Dimensions of temperament. Keynote address to the Virginia Developmental Forum, Washington, DC, November 1991. Lamb, M. E. Childcare in cultural context. Keynote address to a conference on Childcare for children under three: Theories and practices, Berlin, December 18, 1991. Lamb. M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Techniques for interviewing young victims of sexual abuse. Presentation to the Family Advocacy Model Program Directors Meeting, San Antonio, TX, February 1992. Ketterlinus, R. D., Lamb, M. E., Chace, S., & Barber, B. K. Factors associated with knowledge of AIDS among pre-and early-adolescents. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Adolescence, Washington, DC, March 1992. Lamb, M. E., & Fracasso, M. P. The dimensions of temperament in infancy: Physiology, behavior, and maternal perceptions. Invited address to the Quebec Symposium on Childhood and the Family, Quebec City, March 1992.
Estrada, M. T., & Lamb, M. E. Maternal sensitivity in Central American immigrants: Stability and security of attachment. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Miami, May 1992. Broberg, A., Lamb, M. E., Fracasso, M., Scholmerich, A., & Rosenberg, A. A. Social inhibition in infancy: Correspondence between laboratory measures and maternal reports. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Miami, May 1992. Horowitz, S. W., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T. B., Krispin, O., & Reiter- Lavery, L. Reliability of criteria-based content analysis of child witness statements. Paper presented to the American Psychological Society, San Diego, June 1992. Broberg, A., Hwang, C. P., & Lamb, M. E. Inhibition and out-of-home care. Paper presented to the Vth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Seville (Spain), September 1992. Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., & Sigel, I. (Conference co-organizers) Images of childhood: Their historical and cultural origins and implications. Satra Bruk, Sweden, September 1992. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. Interviewing victims of child sexual abuse. Workshop presented to the Family Advocacy Office, United States Air Force, San Antonio, TX, November/December 1992. Scholmerich, A., Shelley, L., Fracasso, M. P., & Lamb, M. E. Behavioral inhibition: Type or continuum? Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1993. Fracasso, M. P., Lamb, M. E., & Scholmerich, A. The relationship between behavioral inhibition and maternal reports of security and dependency in infancy. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1993. Chace, S. V., & Lamb, M. E. Patterns of cross-informant ratings of child behavior problems. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1993. White, K., & Lamb, M. E. Drinking patterns of young women before, during, and after pregnancy: Perinatal and early childhood outcomes. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1993. MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E., Dechman, K. K., & Baradaran, L. A longitudinal investigation of the relation between biased maternal and filial attributions and interaction aggressiveness. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 1993. Lamb, M. E. Inhibition, reactivity, and individuality in infancy: Antecedents and correlates.. Invited address to the Eastern Psychological Association, Arlington, VA, March 1993.
Lamb, M. E. The effects of nonparental care: What do we really know? 1992/93 Diversity and Context Colloquium, Michigan State University, April 1993. Lamb, M. E. The origins and correlates of individual differences in behavioral inhibition. Invited address to the American Psychological Society Convention, Chicago, June 1993. Lamb, M. E., & Keller, H. Patterns of early experience in divergent sociocultural contexts. Symposium presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Recife, Brazil, July 1993. Lamb, M. E., & Fracasso, M. P. Antecedents and correlates of behavioural inhibition in infancy. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Recife, Brazil, July 1993. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Hwang, C. P., & Esplin, P. W. (Conference Co-organizers) The investigation of child sexual abuse: An international, interdisciplinary conference. Satra Bruk, Sweden, September 1993. Leyendecker, B., Scholmerich, A., Larson, C., Fracasso, M. P., & Lamb, M. E. Vokalisation von Suglingen und ihre Mutternein Vergleich von Base und Responserates in zwei subkulturellen Stichproben. Paper presented to the Deutsche Tagung fr Entwicklungspsychologie, Osnabrck, September 1993. Leyendecker, B., Fracasso, M. P., & Lamb, M. E. Alltag in Familien mit Suglingen-wieviel Zeit bleibt zur Eltern-Kind Interaktion. Paper presented to the Deutsche Tagung fr Entwicklungspsychologie, Osnabrck, September 1993. Lamb, M. E. Nonparental childcare: Its contexts and effects. Invited presentation, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, November 1993. Lamb, M. E. Interviewing young victims of sexual maltreatment: Advanced training workshop, Division of Youth Investigation, Israeli Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Maale Hamisha, Israel, December 14 -15, 1993. Sternberg, K. J. & Lamb, M. E. Child witnesses and victims. Presentation to the annual meeting of the U.S. Air Force Area Defense Counsel, Andrews Air Force Base, Landover, Maryland, January 1994. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., & Yudilevitch, L. Effects of investigative style on Israeli childrens responses. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Meeting, Santa Fe, NM, March 1994. Lamb, M. E. The effects of custody arrangements on childrens development. Testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, April 1994.
Lamb, M. E.. Techniques for distinguishing between real and false child sexual abuse allegations. Plenary session presented to the National Conference of the Childrens Rights Council, Bethesda, MD, April 15, 1994. Lamb, M. E. Paternal influences on child development. Paper presented to an international invitational conference on Changing Fatherhood, Tilburg, The Netherlands, May 23-26, 1994. Lamb, M. E. Foster care and its alternatives in the United States. Presentation to the Biennial Conference of Social Pediatrics, Benesov, Czech Republic, May 1994. Lamb, M. E. Nonparental child care in cultural and historical context. Keynote address to interdisciplinary conference on The Family in a Democratic Society, Prague, Czech Republic, May 1994. Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. The evaluation of childrens testimony regarding child abuse. Keynote address to interdisciplinary conference on The Family in a Democratic Society, Prague, Czech Republic, May 1994. Fracasso, M. P., Lamb, M. E., & Miranda Fricke, D. Ecologies of Euro-and Central- American families living in the United States and middle-and lower-middle class families living in Costa Rica. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Paris, June 1994. Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., & Broberg, A. G. Long term effects of contrasting forms of early childcare. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Paris, June 1994. Lamb, M. E. (Symposium organizer) Early social experiences in Euro-American, Central American, and German families. Symposium presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Paris, June 1994. Broberg, A., Hwang, C. P., Wessels, H., & Lamb, M. E. Determinants of verbal abilities: A longitudinal perspective. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Amsterdam, July 1994. Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. Beliefs and practices regarding pregnancy and childbirth among the Nso of Northwest Cameroon. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Amsterdam, July 1994. Lamb, M. E. The development of mother-infant relationships. Keynote address to a symposium on Contemporary Themes in European Psychiatry, Birmingham, England, September 1994. Lamb, M. E. The role of the father in child development. Keynote address to a symposium on Contemporary Themes in European Psychiatry, Birmingham, England, September 1994.
Lamb, M. E. Fathers are parents too. Paper presented to the National Summit on Fatherhood, Dallas-Fort Worth, October 1994. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. (Co-organizers) Consensus conference on the effects of divorce and custody arrangements on childrens development. Middleburg, Virginia, December 1994. Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Child witnesses and victims. Presentation to the annual meeting of the U.S. Air Force Area Defense Counsel, Andrews Air Force Base, Landover, Maryland, January 1995. Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. Antecedents of the Little Five in early childhood: The validity of the Five Factor Model in Swedish preschool and elementary children. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN, March 1995. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Dawud-Noursi, S., & Greenbaum, C. The effects of domestic violence on childrens perceptions of their parents. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN, March 1995. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. Domestic violence in family context. Paper presented to the Fifth Annual Conference of the Center for Human Development and Developmental Disabilities, New Brunswick, New Jersey, May 1995. Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. Der Einfluss vterlicher Erziehungsbeteiligung auf die Persnlichkeitsentwicklung von Kindern im Vorschulalter: Ergebnisse eines Lngsschnitts. [The influence of paternal childrearing involvement on the personality development of preschool children: Some longitudinal results.] Paper presented to the German Sociological Society, April 1995. Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., & Scholmerich, A. Synchrony of mother-infant interaction: The effects of context, subcultural group, and length of observation. Paper presented to the Applied Behavioral Analysis Association, Washington DC, May 1995. Shelley-Sirici, L., Fracasso, M. P., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Lamb, M. E. Mother-infant social and instructional interaction in culturally diverse populations. Poster presented to the American Psychological Society Convention, New York City, June 1995. Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., & Broberg, A. G. Antecedents of the five factor model in early childhood: The validity of the five factor model in Swedish preschool and elementary school children. Paper presented to the International Society on Social Relations, Williamsburg VA, June 1995. Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of interview style on the informativeness of child witnesses. Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Tucson AZ, June 1995.
Shelley-Sirici, L., Fracasso, M. P., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Lamb, M. E. A longitudinal study of mother-infant social and instrumental interaction. Poster presented to the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington DC, August 1995. Leyendecker, B., Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M. E., & Miranda Fricke, D. Interaktionsbeobachtungen im Kontext: Der Einfluss sozialer Schicht. Paper presented to the Deutsche Tagung fr Entwicklungspsychologie, Leipzig, September 1995. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dalenberg, C. Enhancing childrens competency as witnesses: A research-based approach. Invited workshop presented to the annual San Diego Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment, San Diego, January 1996. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Hovav, M. Validation of criterion-based content analysis in a field study. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Hilton Head, N.C., February/March 1996. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Boat, B., & Everson, M. Informativeness of childrens accounts in interviews with and without anatomical dolls. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Hilton Head, N.C., February/March 1996. Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. The relationships among interviewer utterance type, CBCA scores, and the richness of childrens responses. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Hilton Head, N.C., February/March 1996. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Hovav, M., & Esplin, P. W. Effects of introductory style on childrens accounts of sexual abuse. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Hilton Head, N.C., February/March 1996. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Williams, J. M. G. The effect of domestic violence on childrens retrieval of autobiographical memory. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Hilton Head, N.C., February/March 1996. Dawud-Noursi, S., Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Kaufman, A., & Larson, C. The effects of domestic violence on adolescents relationships and conflicts. Paper presented to the Society for Research on Adolescence, Boston, March 1996. Lamb, M. E. The long term effects of nonparental care arrangements on the development of Swedish children. Paper presented by invitation to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Providence, Rhode Island, April 1996. Leyendecker, B., Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M. E., & Harwood, R. Central-and Euro- American mothers evaluation of infant behavior in everyday contexts. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Providence, Rhode Island, April 1996.
Lamb, M. E. Whats a father for? Keynote address to an invitational conference on British Fatherhood, London, April 30, 1996. Lamb, M. E. What are fathers for? Invited presentation to the Conference on Developmental, Ethnographic, and Demographic Perspectives on Fatherhood, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, June 1996. Lamb, M. E. Infancy and childhood: The challenges and the opportunities. Visiting Faculty at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Infancy and Childhood: Current Directions in Theory, Research, and Application. Utah State University, Ogden UT, June 1996. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., Williams, J.M.G., & Dawud-Noursi, S. The effect of domestic violence on childrens retrieval of autobiographical memory. Paper presented to the International Research Conference on Trauma and Memory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, July 1996. Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. The environment of the infant among Nso of Northwest Cameroon: Some theoretical issues and research implications. Paper presented to the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, August 1996. Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Fricke, D. M. Observing mother-infant interaction: Minimizing and maximizing the effects of SES. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec (Canada), August 1996. Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., Harwood, R., & Scholmerich, A. The child or the circumstances: Who is responsible? Parental evaluations of everyday situations in two diverse cultural niches. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec (Canada), August 1996. Ahnert, L., Freytag, R., Hermsdorf, C., Kuchler, E., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Porges, S. W. The impact of stress and coping on adaptation to day care in infancy. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec (Canada), August 1996. Eckensberger, L. & Lamb, M. E. (Co-organizers) Nature, culture, and the question, why? Invited symposium at International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec (Canada), August 1996. Lamb, M. E. The long term effects of nonparental care arrangements on the development of Swedish children. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec (Canada), August 1996. MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E., Campbell, J., & Hattie, J. Antecedents and consequences of boys aggression in the family and school. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec (Canada), August 1996.
Dawud-Noursi, S., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Childrens maltreatment experiences: Perspectives of multiple informants. Paper presented to the 11th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, DC, September 1996. Leyendecker, B., Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M. E., & Harwood, R. Langfristige Sozialisationsziele und die Bewertung von Alltagsverhalten von Suglingen: ein Vergleich zentralamerikanischer und U.S.-amerikanischer Mutter. Paper presented to the German Psychology Association, Munich, September 1996. Lamb, M. E. The development of father-infant relationships. Paper presented to the National Center on Fathers and Families, Roundtable on Role Transitions, Philadelphia, October 8, 1996. Lamb, M. E. Research on father involvement: An historical overview. Keynote address to the NICHD Conference on Fathers Involvement, Bethesda MD, October 1996. Lamb, M. E. Commentary on Mens roles in families: A look back, a look forward. Paper presented to the Pennsylvania State University National Symposium on Men in Families, University Park PA, October/November 1996. Lamb, M. E. When we were very young......Invited address to a symposium in honor of Professor Michael Lewis, Institute for the Study of Child Development, New Brunswick NJ, January 1997. Lamb, M. E. Fathers, children, and nontraditional families: Characteristics, consequences, and strategies for change. Invited presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Seattle WA, February 1997. Dawud-Noursi, S., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of family violence on Israeli childrens adjustment at school. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington DC, April 1997. Bassen, C., Braveman, J., Pearlman, J., & Lamb, M. E. Gender differences in normal adolescents: Guilt, reparation, and shame. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington DC, April 1997. Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Beresford, J., Domenici-Lake, P. L., & Heiges, K. The effect of a delay on the incorporation of post event information into childrens eyewitness memory. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington DC, April 1997. Bassen, C., Braveman, J., Pearlman, J., & Lamb, M. E. Gender differences in normal adolescents: Self assessment of traits according to role. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington DC, April 1997. Lamb, M. E. Noncustodial fatherhood and its effects on child development. Plenary address to a conference on The post-divorce family: research and policy issues, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, May 1997.
Weise, P., Hermsdorf, C., Barthel, M., Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. The impact of infant temperament on the adjustment to daycare. Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society, Washington DC, May 1997. Bressler, Y., Ahnert, L. & Lamb, M. E. Effects of maternal and infant age on German mothers perceptions of stress. Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society, Washington DC, May 1997. Bressler, Y., Ahnert, L. & Lamb, M. E. Effects of enrollment in daycare on everyday experiences of German toddlers. Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society, Washington DC, May 1997. Seltenheim, K., Ahnert, L. & Lamb, M. E. The formation of attachments between infants and care providers in German daycare centers. Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society, Washington DC, May 1997. Roberts, K., Lamb, M. E., & Randall, D. W. Childrens responses to interviewers mistakes. Paper presented to the International Family Violence Research Conference, Durham NH, June/July 1997. Scholmerich, A., & Lamb, M. E. Infant temperament, fear of novelty and behavioural inhibition: A longitudinal study over the first year of life. Paper presented to an International conference on shyness and self-consciousness, University of Wales, Cardiff, June 1997. Roberts, K., Lamb, M. E., & Randall, D. W. Assessing the plausibility of allegations of sexual abuse from childrens accounts. Paper presented to the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Toronto, July 1997. Lamb, M. E. What psychology tells us about interviewing children. Keynote presentation to a conference on Cleveland ten years on: Child protectionWhat really matters?, London, England, September 10, 1997. Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood and father-child relationships. Keynote address to the annual Mental Health Association Conference of Northern Indiana, South Bend IN, October 17, 1997. Marsiglio, W., Day, R., & Lamb, M. E. Social fatherhood and paternal involvement: Conceptual, data, and policymaking issues. Paper presented to the Theory Construction and Research Methods Workshop, National Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, VA, November 5, 1997. Lamb, M. E. Discussant in Symposium, Towards a maturing conceptualization of father involvement, National Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, VA, November 9, 1997. Lamb, M. E. Discussant in Symposium, Working with young fathers, National Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, VA, November 10, 1997.
Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., & Randall, D. W. Bill touched me Bob touched you?: Interviewers mistakes during investigative interviews. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, Redondo Beach CA, March 1998. Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., Zale, J. L., & Randall, D. W. Qualitative differences in childrens accounts of confirmed and unconfirmed incidents of sexual abuse. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, Redondo Beach CA, March 1998. Roberts, K. P., Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Zale, J. L. Effects of introductory style on childrens accounts of a staged event. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, Redondo Beach CA, March 1998. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Fauchier, A., Horowitz, D., & Hovav, M. Visiting the scene of the crime: Effects on childrens recall of alleged abuse. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, Redondo Beach CA, March 1998. Scholmerich, A., & Lamb, M. E. (Co-chairs) Adult-infant interaction: Observations of everyday behavior in diverse cultural settings. Symposium presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Atlanta, April 1998. Lamb, M. E. Discussant on The role of fathers in early affective development. Symposium presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Atlanta, April 1998. Lamb, M. E. Discussant on Studying the role of fathers in the lives of low-income infants and toddlers. Symposium presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Atlanta, April 1998. Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., & Sternberg, K. J. (Co-organizers) International conference on investigative interviewing procedures. Satra Bruk, Sweden, April 25-29, 1998. Lamb, M. E. The influence of father love on child development: A commentary. Presentation to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Washington, DC, May 23, 1998. Lamb, M. E. The role of fathers in low-income families. Invited presentation to Head Starts Fourth National Research Conference, Washington, DC, July 10, 1998. Lamb, M. E. Patterns of parent-child interaction across cultures and contexts. Paper presented in a symposium on A baby and somebody: Effects of parental contact and proximity, day and night, on human infant development at the University of Notre Dame, South Bend IN, September 28, 1998. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. A. Eliciting and evaluating childrens accounts of sexual abuse. Invited presentation to the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center Annual Convention, Las Vegas NV, October 23, 1998.
Hewlett, B. S., Lamb, M. E.., Leyendecker, B., & Scholmerich, A. Internal working models, trust, and sharing among foragers. Paper presented to the International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, Osaka, Japan, October 25, 1998. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Eliciting accurate investigative statements from children. Invited workshop presentation to the Fifteenth National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, Huntsville, AL, March 12, 1999. Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Fauchier, A., Shiloah, H., Horowitz, D., & Hovav, M. Interviewing at the scene of the crime: Effects on childrens recall of alleged abuse. Poster presented to the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM, April 1999. Cabrera, N., Boller, K., & Lamb, M. E. The demography and study of low income fathers. Paper presented to the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM, April 1999. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Effective interviewing techniques: Eliciting narrative accounts from alleged victims. Invited workshop presentation to the American Professional Society on Child Abuse and Neglect Annual Colloquium, San Antonio TX, June 5, 1999. Roberts, K. P., Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Zale, J. L., & Sirrine, N. K. The effectiveness of open-ended and direct rapport-building styles on childrens reports of a staged event. Paper presented to the biennial meeting of the Society for Applied Research into Memory and Cognition, Boulder CO, July 1999. Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Lamb, M. E., & Boller, K. Measuring father involvement in Early Head Start: A multidimensional conceptualization. Paper presented to the National Conference on Health Statistics, Washington, DC, August 1999. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. Enhancing the quality of forensic interviews in field settings by implementing interview protocols. Invited presentation to the American Psychological Association Convention, Boston, August 1999. Lamb. M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Lentrevue dinvestigation des jeunes victimes dabus sexuel. [Investigative interviews of young victims of sexual abuse.] Forum sur les abus sexuels de lAssociation des centres jeunesse du Qubec/Partenariat de recherche et dintervention en matire dabus sexuel a lendroit des enfants, Montral, Qubec, September 1999. Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M. E., & Leyendecker, B. (Co-organizers) Infants in cultural context. International workshop on early infant experiences in diverse cultural contexts. Bochum, Germany, October 1999.
Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I. The development of the NICHD Investigative Protocol. Presentation at a symposium on Training child investigators in developmentally adapted interviews, Regional European Conference of International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Jerusalem, Israel, October 1999. Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M.E., Sternberg, K.J. Implementing interview protocols in forensic investigations of child witnesses. Presentation at a seminar on Interviewing child-witnesses in legal settings, sponsored by the Youth Probation Service, Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, and The League for Children, School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 1999. Lamb, M. E. Post-divorce parent-child relationships and recommendations for policy. Presentation to the Ohio Task Force on Family Law and Children, Columbus, January 2000. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Investigative interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Invited workshop for 16th National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, Huntsville, AL, March 2000. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D. Eliciting information about alleged abuse using open-ended prompts: An analysis of field demonstration studies. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology Law Society meetings, New Orleans, March 2000. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D. Assessing the value of scripted protocols for forensic interviews of alleged abuse victims. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology Law Society meetings, New Orleans, March 2000. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Horowitz, D. A comparison of mental and physical context reinstatement in forensic interviews with alleged victims of sexual abuse. Poster presented to the biennial American Psychology Law Society meetings, New Orleans, March 2000. Roberts, K. P., Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Sirrine, N. The effects of rapport building on the quality of information reported by children about a staged event. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology Law Society meetings, New Orleans, March 2000. Lamb, M. E. Post-divorce parent-child relationships. Keynote address to the 24th Annual Colorado Conference on Children and Divorce, Denver, April 2000. Lamb, M. E. Why are fathers important? Keynote address to the Delaware Governors Conference on Fatherhood, Dover, Delaware, June 2000. Campbell, J., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. Early child care experiences and childrens social competence between 1.5 and 15 years of age. Paper presented to the National Head Start Research Conference, Washington, June 2000.
Ahnert L., Rickert H., Porges S. W., Lamb M. E. Infant cardiac activity during adjustment to child care and relations with attachment security. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Brighton, England, July 2000. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Eliciting narrative accounts from alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Invited workshop to the XXVII International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden, July 2000. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. (Organizers) Improving investigative interview techniques. International Interdisciplinary Workshop, Salt Lake City, August 27 to September 1, 2000. Lamb, M. E. Overview of recent research on the effectiveness of structured investigative interview guides. Presentation to International Interdisciplinary Workshop on Improving Investigative Interview Techniques. Salt Lake City, August 28 2000. Lamb, M. E. Investigative interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Satellite Video presentation, The National Childrens Advocacy Center, Huntsville AL, September 5, 2000. Lamb, M. E. Forensic interview techniques that maximize the competence of child witnesses. Invited workshop, 16th Annual Midwest Conference on Child Sexual Abuse and Incest, Madison, WI, October 25, 2000. Lamb, M. E., & Holliday, K. Parental relocation: Trying the out of state move case. National Association of Counsel for Children Childrens Law Conference, Washington DC, November 5, 2000. Lamb, M. E. Male familial involvement: An update. Symposium on the Diverse experiences of males in families, National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, Minneapolis, November 9, 2000. Lamb, M. E. Cross-cultural perspectives on the role and importance of fathers in child development. Keynote address to national conference on The Role and Importance of Fathers in the Childs Life, Istanbul, Turkey, December 20, 2000. Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. Structured interview format for forensic interviewers. Advanced workshop, San Diego Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment, San Diego, January 22 to 26, 2001. Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., & Hwang, C. P. Father involvement in Sweden: Exploring its components and stability over time. Paper presented to an interdisciplinary workshop on Measuring father involvement, Natcher Conference Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, February 2001. Lamb, M. E. Developmental theory and public policy: A cross-national perspective. Green College Lecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, February 5, 2001.
Lamb, M. E. Eliciting information from child sexual abuse victims. Tanner Lecture Series, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, February 27, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Commentary on a lecture by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, The past, present, and future of the human family. Tanner Lectures in Human Values, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, February 28, 2001. Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Workshop presentation to the Judicial Council of Californias and Family Court Services Statewide Educational Institute, Costa Mesa CA, March 23, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Alleged child sexual abuse: The expert witness and the court. Fakultetsopponent (Clara H. Gumpert), Institutionen for ForkhalsovetenskapAvdeling for stressforskning, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm (Sweden), March 30, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Fathers, mothers, and families: Shaping child development. Invited address, VIII Congress of the Association Internationale pour la Formation et la Recherche en Education Familiale, Saint-Sauveur-des-Monts, Qubec, April 18, 2001. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. Can young children respond informatively to open-ended questions posed by forensic interviewers? Paper presented to the biennial conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, April 21, 2001. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. The accuracy of investigators verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Paper presented to the biennial conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, April 20, 2001. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. E. Infant-care provider attachments in contrasting German child care settings. Poster presented to the biennial conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, April 20, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate visitation. Invited Workshop, Custody and Visitation Symposium , National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Charlotte NC, June 5, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate forensic interview techniques. Presentation to National Childrens Law Conference, San Diego CA, October 2, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Psychological issues in child custody. Invited presentation to the conference on Advanced Family Law, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno NV, October 24, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Psychological issues and custody. Invited presentation to the conference on Recent Developments in Juvenile and Family Law: An Update for Appellate Judges, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno NV, October 25, 2001.
Lamb, M. E. Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Workshop presentation to the Judicial Council of Californias and Family Court Services Statewide Educational Institute, Palm Springs CA, October 26, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Father-child relationships and developmentally appropriate parenting plans. Keynote address to the annual conference of the Massachusetts Association of Guardians ad Litem, Waltham MA, November 9, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Maximizing the quality of information elicited from alleged victims of child abuse. Invited address to Child witnessing: Current themes, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England, December 7, 2001. Lamb, M. E. Parent-child relationships before and after divorce. Invited presentation in Symposium on Custody in a mobile society, Pennsylvania Trial Courts Annual Conference, Philadelphia, February 23, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Placing childrens interests first: Developmentally appropriate parenting plans. Invited address, Center for Children Families, and the Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, February 28, 2002. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., Stewart, H., & Mitchell, S. Age differences in young childrens responses to open-ended invitations in the course of forensic interviews. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Austin TX, March 7-10, 2002. Thierry, K. L., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Relation between source monitoring and child witness responses to open-ended questions about alleged abuse. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Austin TX, March 7-10, 2002. Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Developmentally sensitive interview practices. Invited workshop, Eighteenth National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, Huntsville AL, March 19-22, 2002. Chuang, S. S., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. The emergence of personality development in early childhood: A longitudinal investigation of ego-resiliency and ego-control in Sweden. Poster presentation to the Conference on Human Development, Charlotte NC, April 4-7, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Using child development research to make developmentally appropriate parenting plans following divorce. Keynote address, Annual Meeting of the Interdisciplinary Forum on Mental Health and Family Law, New York City, April 16, 2002. Ahnert, L., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S. W., & Rickert, H. Infant emotions and cardiac reactivity during adjustment to child care I: Perspectives from infant-mother attachment. Poster presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Toronto, Canada, April 19, 2002.
Ahnert, L., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S. W., & Rickert, H. Infant emotions and cardiac reactivity during adjustment to child care II: The emerging infant-care provider attachment. Poster presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Toronto, Canada, April 19, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Assessing the strengths of child witness statements. Invited workshop for the 28th Annual Interservice Military Judges Seminar, Montgomery AL, April 23, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Special developmental needs of children under five years old. Invited workshop for the Custody and Visitation Symposium, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Charleston SC, May 6, 2002. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Stewart, H. L., & Mitchell, S. Age differences in young children's reports of temporal information in the course of forensic interviews. Paper presented to the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia, June 7, 2002. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Horowitz, D., & Esplin, P. W. Improving credibility assessment in child sexual abuse investigations: The role of the investigative interview protocol. Paper presented to the XXV International Congress on Applied Psychology, Singapore, July 9, 2002. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate visitation and access decisions. Invited presentation to the Judicial Conference of Virginia for District Court Judges, Virginia Beach, August 12-13, 2002. Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. (Co-organizers) Culture and ecology of forager children. Preconference workshop, Conference on the Hunters and Gatherers Society, Edinburgh (Scotland), September 7-8, 2002. Lamb, M. E. The role of non-parental child care in child development. Address and discussion with Netherlands Delegation on Child Care, Washington DC, October 7, 2002. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Research on fatherhood and father-child relationships. International Fatherhood Summit. Christ Church College, Oxford, England, March 24-30, 2003. Lamb, M. E. Promoting child well-being through mother- and father-child relationships. Berger Institute Invited Lecture, Claremont-McKenna College, Pomona CA, March 31, 2003. Chuang, S. S., Hwang, C., P., & Lamb, M. E. Paternal leave and paternal involvement in Sweden. Paper presented to the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa FL, April 24-27, 2003. Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Cabrera, N., & Lamb, M. E. Determinants of father involvement: Presence/absence and quality of engagement. Paper presented to the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa FL, April 2427, 2003.
Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate parenting plans. Invited workshop for the Custody and Visitation Symposium, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, San Diego, May 5, 2003. Lamb, M. E. Participant in workshop on The American Law Institutes Principles of Family Dissolution, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, May 20, 2003. Lamb, M. E., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Shannon, J., & Cabrera, N. Low-income fathers in the USA: A closer look at the children in the Early Head Start Evaluation Study. Presentation to the European Social Research Council Research Seminar Series seminar on Fathers and Fatherhood: New Directions for Research and Policy, London, England, June 9, 2003. Pipe, M. E., Cederborg, A-C., Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (Co-organizers). Conference on resistance to disclosure by alleged victims of sexual abuse. Satra Bruk, Sweden, August 11-15, 2003. Lamb, M. E. Developpement socio-emotionnel du jeune enfant et scolarisation precoce [Socioemotional development in the context of early childhood education]. Keynote address to Colloque du Service de la Recherche en Education 2003: 2eme Colloque Constructivisme et Education: Scolariser la petite enfance? [ Educational Research Unit Colloquium 2003: Second Colloquium on Constructivism and Education: Educationalizing infancy?], University of Geneva, Geneva (Switzerland), September 15-17, 2003. Ahnert, L., Carter, S. C., Porges, S. W., & Lamb, M. E. (Co-organizers). Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis. Dahlem Palace, Berlin, September 28 - October 3, 2003. Lamb, M. E. Custody issues. North Carolina Association of District Court Judges, Boone NC, October 9, 2003. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate parenting plans. Annual conference, Harford County Office of Family Court Services, Bel-Air MD, November 18, 2003. Lamb, M. E., & Pipe, M. E. Repeated interviewing in forensic contexts: Is there a baby in the bathwater? Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 5, 2004. Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Effects of repeated interviews on the information retrieved by child-witnesses in forensic interviews. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 5, 2004. Pipe, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Stewart, H. Non-disclosures and alleged abuse in forensic interviews. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 4 7, 2004.
Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Pipe, M. E. Dynamics of forensic interviews with children who do not disclose abuse. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 5, 2004. Cederborg, A. C., & Lamb, M. E. Delay of disclosure, minimization, and denial of abuse in a multi-victim case. Paper presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 5, 2004. DeBoard, R., Orbach, Y., Mendoza, M., Jensen, S., & Lamb, M. E. An analysis of interviews in which children did not make allegations of suspected sexual abuse. Poster presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 5, 2004. Chavez, V., Sullivan, K., Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. Spontaneous disclosure in forensic interviews. Poster presented to the biennial American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Scottsdale AZ, March 5, 2004. Fouts, H. N., Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. Developmental and cultural differences in the breastfeeding context among four small-scale societies in Central Africa. Paper presented to the International Conference on Infant Studies, Chicago, May 6, 2004. Brown, D., Lamb, M. E., Aldridge, J., Sternberg, K. J., & Orbach, Y. Improving the quality of forensic interviews of children. Poster presented to the Forensic Psychology Research Group conference on Eliciting information from eye witnesses and victims of crime: Interviewing and identification, Open University, Milton Keynes, U.K., May 6, 2004. Lamb, M. E. Children are competent witnesses when competently interviewed. Cattell Award Address to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 28, 2004. Sternberg, K. J., Abbott, C., Baradaran, L. P., Guterman, E., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of different types and frequencies of family violence on childrens adjustment. Poster presented to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 28, 2004. Chuang, S. S., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. Swedish adolescents relational and assertive selfconcepts across social contexts and relationships. Poster presented to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 28, 2004. Gernsbacher, M. A., Lamb, M. E., Levenson, R., Levitin, T., Schnur, P., Snyder, M., & Steinberg, J. Show me the money: Grant-getting for graduate student and new faculty. Workshop at the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 27, 2004. Lamb, M. E., LaRooy, D., Orbach, Y., & Pipe, M. E. Childrens recall of real world experiences. Symposium presented at the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 28, 2004.
Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Developmental differences in young childrens reports of temporal sequencing information in the course of forensic interviews. Paper presented to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 28, 2004. Cederborg, A.C., & Lamb, M. E. Disabled children exposed to crime: How does the legal system respond when they are victimized? Paper presented to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Chicago, May 29, 2004. Lamb, M. E. Structured assessment in child interviewing. Invited workshop, American Bar Association-American Psychological Association National Conference on Children and the Law, Washington, June 4, 2004. Lamb, M. E. Suggestibility and childrens recollections. Invited workshop, American Bar Association-American Psychological Association National Conference on Children and the Law, Washington, June 4, 2004. Lamb, M. E. (Discussant) Symposium on Fathers in context: Family structure, socio-economics, and cultural prescriptions, Head Starts 7th National Research Conference, Washington, June 28, 2004. Pipe, M.-E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. Characteristics associated with nondisclosure of suspected abuse. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association Convention, August 2004. Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Horowitz, D., & Sternberg, K. J. Dynamics of forensic interviews with children who do not disclose abuse. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association Convention, August 2004. Pipe, M.-E., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E. Autobiographical memory and children's testimony: A crosscultural perspective. Paper presented to the XXVIII International Congress of Psychology, Beijing, August 2004. Lamb, M. E. Helping children become informative conversationalists about their experiences of abuse. Paper presented to Conversations and childhood: The impact of conversations on early social, emotional and cognitive development, Cambridge UK, October 14, 2004. Brown, D., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M.-E., Orbach, Y., & Lewis, C. Childrens use of drawings to report touch: Implications for forensic interviews. Paper presented to the 2nd International Workshop for Young Psychologists on Evolution and Development of Cognition, Kyoto, Japan, November 12, 2004. Lamb, M. E. Is parental leave good for gender equality? Discussion session at the GeNet ESRC Gender Equalities Network Introductory Conference, Cambridge, December 16, 2004.
Brown, D., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Lewis, C. Show me on the drawing where she touched you: Exploring childrens use of human figure drawings to report touch. Paper presented to the Society for Applied Research on Memory and Cognition, Victoria, New Zealand, January 7, 2005. Darvish, T., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. The production of investigative leads in child sexual abuse interviews using the NICHD protocol. Paper presented to the Society for Applied Research on Memory and Cognition, Victoria, New Zealand, January 7, 2005. Brown, D., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Lewis, C. Using drawings with children to elicit reports of touch after short and long delays. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, La Jolla CA, March 4, 2005. Thierry, K. S., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y. & Pipe, M. E. Developmental differences in the use of anatomical dolls during interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, La Jolla CA, March 4, 2005. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Disclosures and nondisclosures of abuse in forensic interviews. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, La Jolla CA, March 4, 2005. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. Enhancing childrens recall using contextual cues in forensic interviews. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, La Jolla CA, March 4, 2005. Trinder, L., & Lamb, M. E. Measuring up? The relationship between correlates of childrens adjustment and both family law and policy in England. Invited presentation to the Louisiana Law Review Symposium on Divorce reform for the protection of children, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 16-18, 2005. Sternberg, K. J., Guterman, E., Abbott, C. B., Baradaran, L. P., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of domestic violence on children's behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal, multiinformant perspective. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Convention, Atlanta GA, April 8, 2005. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Baradaran, L. B., Abbott, C. B., & Guterman, E. Age, gender, and type of abuse differences in the effects of family violence on children's behavior problems: A mega-analysis. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Convention, Atlanta GA, April 9, 2005. Elischberger, H., Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. Do young children rely on scripts in recounting multiple instances of abuse? Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Los Angeles, May 26, 2005. La Rooy, D., Pipe, M. E., & Lamb, M. E. Do repeated suggestive interviews with young children increase suggestibility? Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Los Angeles, May 26, 2005.
Sternberg, K. J., Guterman, E., Abbott, C. B., Lamb, M. E., & Baradaran, L. B. Contrasts between children's and mothers' reports of abuse and of the childrens behavior problems. Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Los Angeles, May 27, 2005. Mendoza, M. M., Jensen, S. A., Daniels, I. M., Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E., Exploring childrens responses to yes/no and forced choice prompts in forensic interviews. Poster presentation to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Los Angeles, May 26, 2005. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Factors affecting childrens disclosure: Developmental differences in secrecy and concealment in a field study. Paper presented to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Los Angeles, May 28, 2005. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Abuse severity, threats, fears, and childrens disclosure of child sexual abuse. Paper presented to the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, Los Angeles, May 27, 2005. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate forensic interviewing techniques. Paper presented to the Ninth International Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Law and Psychology, London, July 11-12, 2005. Lamb, M. E. Techniques for improving the quality of information elicited in forensic interviews. Keynote address to a conference on Investigative Interviewing of Child Witnesses Taking Stock and Moving Forward, Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh, September 6, 2005. Lamb, M. E. Improving the quality of parent-child contact in separating families. International Institute for the Sociology of Law Workshop on Contact Between Children and Separated Parents, Onati (Spain), 15 September, 2005. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Father-child relationships and childrens development: A key to durable solutions? Presentation to the Family Justice Councils Conference on Durable Solutions in Family Law, Dartington Hall, Devon, September 30 to October 2, 2005. Lamb, M. E. The many faces of fatherhood: Some thoughts about fatherhood and immigration. Paper presented to a conference entitled On new shores: Understanding immigrant fathers in North America, Syracuse, New York October 27-28, 2005. Fouts, H. N., Lamb, M. E., & Hewlett, B. S. Developmental, cultural, and ecological features of breastfeeding among four cultures in Central Africa. Paper presented to a conference on Self, Dyad, and Group: Autonomy and Relatedness over the Lifespan, Bochum (Germany), January 5 7, 2006. Lamb, M. E. The needs of children. Presentation to Ministerial conference on FatherhoodThe childs perspective, London, January 24, 2006.
Hershkowitz, I., & Lamb, M. E. Forensic investigations of alleged victims of abuse who have learning and mental difficulties. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, St. Petersburg FL, 4 March, 2006. Cederborg, A. C., & Lamb, M. E. How does the legal system respond when children with learning difficulties are victimized? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, St. Petersburg FL, 4 March, 2006. Cederborg, A. C., La Rooy, D., & Lamb, M. E. Repeated interviews about alleged abuse with children who have intellectual disabilities. Paper presented to the American PsychologyLaw Society conference, St. Petersburg FL, 4 March, 2006. Brown, D. A., Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E., Stephens, E., & Lunn, J. Facilitating eyewitness testimony in children with learning disabilities. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society conference, St. Petersburg FL, 4 March, 2006. Brown, D.A., Lewis, C., Stephens, E., Lunn, J., & Lamb, M.E. Facilitating eyewitness testimony in children with learning disabilities. Invited presentation to the Psychology Department Seminar Series, May 2006, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. Lamb, M. E. Fathers matter! Keynote address to Family Rights Group, London, June 29, 2006. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, , I., & Esplin, P. W. The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: An introduction. Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Aldridge, J., Bowler, L., Pearson, S., & Esplin, P. W. Enhancing the quality of investigative interviews by British police officers. Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006. Cyr, M., Lamb, M. E., Pelletier, J., Leduc, P., & Perron, A. Assessing the effectiveness of the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol in Francophone Quebec. Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006. Larsson, A., Teoh, Y. S., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Hershkowitz, I. Effects of physical and mental context reinstatement and cueing on childrens reports about extra-familial child abuse. Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006. LaRooy, D., Lamb, M. E., & Pipe, M. E. Is skepticism about repeated interviewing justified? What does the research say? Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006.
Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., LaRooy, D., Pipe, M. E., & Stewart, H. L. A witness to abduction: A case study of repeated interviewing. Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006. Stephens, E., Brown, D. A., Lunn, J. F., Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. Repeated interviewing of children with learning disabilities. Paper presented to the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference, Portsmouth UK, July 5-7, 2006. Brown, D.A., Lewis, C., Stephens, E., Lunn, J., & Lamb, M.E. Interviewing children with learning disabilities about their experiences. Poster presented at the 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology, 16-21 July, 2006, Athens, Greece. Lewis, C., Brown, D.A., Stephens, E., Lunn, J., & Lamb, M.E. Interviewing children with learning disabilities about their experiences. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Memory (ICOM-4), Sydney, 16 - 21 July, 2006. Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., & Pipe, M. E. Input-free cueing techniques in forensic interviews with children. Paper presented to the 4th International Conference on Memory (ICOM-4), Sydney, July 16-21, 2006. Kiernan, K., & Lamb, M. E. Separated parents and child well-being. Paper presented to the International Conference on Children and Divorce, Norwich, July 24-27, 2006. Lamb, M.E. Factors affecting childrens adjustment following parental separation. Keynote address to the International Conference on Children and Divorce, Norwich, July 24-27, 2006. Lamb, M. E. Can children be competent informants about their experiences of abuse? Invited address to the 50th Anniversary Celebration for the Institute of Psychology, University of Goteborg, September 2006. Lamb, M. E. Fathers matter? Keynote speaker, Greater London Family Panel Conference, Harrington Hall, London, November 18, 2006. Brown, D. B., Lamb, M. E., Lewis, C., Pipe, M. E., & Orbach, Y. Promoting best practice in forensic interviews with children: Lab-based validations of field-based techniques. Presentation to a conference Memory on Trial: The Role of Memory in the Courtroom, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ, November 29 2006. Lamb, M. E. Non-parental care and emotional development. Invited contribution to a Conference on Early development, attachment, and social policy, University of Cambridge, December 2006. Lamb, M. E. The first three years: Building the basis for a better life. Keynote address, What About the Children? Conference, London, March 6, 2007.
Lamb, M. E. Can children be competent witnesses? Fifteenth Annual Warren Weiswasser Lecture, Yale University Medical Center, New Haven CT, April 25, 2007. Lamb, M. E., Guterman, E., Abbott, C. B., & Baradaran, L. Effects of supportive and risk factors including family violence on childrens adjustment. Poster presentation to the 2007 Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, Washington DC, May 26, 2007. La Rooy, D., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of repeating questions in forensic interviews with children. Presentation to the British Psychological Society Cognitive Section Conference, Aberdeen, August 21, 2007. Lamb, M. E. How does early out-of-home care affect child development? Keynote address, Fachgruppe Entwicklungspsychologie (German Society for Developmental Psychology), Heidelberg, 24 September 2007. Brown, D. A., Lewis, C., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M.-E., & Orbach, Y. Show me on the drawing where she touched you: The impact of interview technique and delay on childrens recall of bodily touch. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Jacksonville FL, March 6-8, 2008. Teoh, Y.-S., Yang, P.-J., Lamb, M. E., & Larsson, A. Do human figure drawings help alleged victims of sexual abuse provide clearer accounts of physical contact with alleged perpetrators? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Jacksonville FL, March 6-8, 2008. La Rooy, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. The effects of repeating questions in forensic interviews with children. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Jacksonville FL, March 6-8, 2008. Hershkowitz, I., & Lamb, M. E. Abuse disclosure by children with mental and physical disabilities. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Jacksonville FL, March 6-8, 2008. Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. The effects of the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol on assessment of credibility in child sexual abuse investigations. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Jacksonville FL, March 6-8, 2008. Pipe, M.-E., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Abbott, C. B., Stewart, H. L., & Schindler, S. Does the introduction of an evidence-based investigative interview protocol affect case outcomes? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, Jacksonville FL, March 6-8, 2008. Lamb, M. E. Invited participant to the symposium Big Books: selection of personal favourites from social scientists interested in policy-making for children and families. Roundtable discussion at the British Psychological Society Annual Conference, Dublin, April 2, 2008.
Lamb, M. E. How does early non-parental care affect child development? Invited address, Jacobs Foundation Conference on Early child development and its implications for later achievement, Marbach Castle (Germany), April 2-4, 2008. Yang, P. J., Kloss, A.-K., Ahnert, L. & Lamb, M. E. (2008). Learning how to read, write and calculate: Links between prerequisites and acquired skills. Paper presented to the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development Conference, Wurzburg, July 2008. Lamb, M. E. Helping children be competent witnesses in forensic contexts. Keynote address to the Japanese Psychological Association Annual Convention, Hokkaido, September 1921, 2008. Lamb, M. E. Fatherhood and father-child relationships. Keynote address to Mothers, Fathers, and Caregivers: Addressing Issues of Attachment, Aggression, Foster Care and Trauma, Philadelphia Compact, Philadelphia, November 7, 2008. Lamb, M. E. The role of fathers in child development. Interdisciplinary symposium, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine at the University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, February 11, 2009. Cederborg, A.-C., La Rooy, D., Danielsson, H., & Lamb, M. E. Repetition of contaminating question types when children and youths with learning disabilities are interviewed. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Convention, San Antonio TX, March 6-8, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Fathers, mothers, and child development. Parents Matter International Conference, London March 26, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Mothers, fathers, or parents at home and at work. Conference on Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century, Queens College, Cambridge, March 27, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Conducting developmentally appropriate interviews of young witnesses. Plenary address, International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009. Yang, P. J., Teoh, Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. The usefulness of human figure diagrams in clarifying childrens descriptive accounts of touches. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009. La Rooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. The effectiveness of using multiple interviews. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009. Katz, C., Hershkowitz, I., & Lamb, M. E. Draw me what happened: Integrating drawing while interviewing alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009.
Hershkowitz, I., & Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Katz, C., & Horowitz, D. The effect of the relationship to the suspect on childrens reports of abuse. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009. Malloy, L. C., Katz, C., Quas, J. A., Lyon, T. D., & Lamb, M. E. When lack of motivation leads to denial: Recantation in investigative interviews with children. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009. Katz, C., Hershkowitz, I., Malloy, L. C., Atabaki, A., Spindler, S. A. K., & Lamb, M. E. The body talks: Trying to understand reluctant children through their body language during investigative interviews. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Annual Conference, Teeside, April 15, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Exploring the effects of attachment relationships on reactions to transitions. Paper presented to the US National Institute of Aging workshop on Advancing integrative Psychological Research on Adaptive and Healthy Aging, Berkeley CA, May 21, 2009. Lamb, M. E. [Discussant and Chair]. Childrens memories and reports of touching events. Symposium presented at the Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, San Francisco, May 23, 2009. Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Abbott, C. B., & Stewart, H. L. Do best practice interviews with child abuse victims influence case outcomes? Poster presentation to the National Institute of Justice Research Conference, Washington DC, June 16, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Mothers, fathers, and infants. Paper presented in honour of Rudolph Schaffer to the British Psychological Society Developmental Section Conference, Nottingham, September 9, 2009. Yang, P. J., & Lamb, M. E. Factors affecting children's transition to school: An ecological model. Paper presented to the British Psychological Society Developmental Section Conference, Nottingham, September 9, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Fathers, mothers, and child development. Colloquium on Strengthening Marriage and Supporting Families, Valletta (Malta), October 6-7, 2009. Yang, P. J., Kappler, G., Lamb, M. E. & Ahnert, L. Factors affecting children's transition to school: An ecological model. Paper presented to the British Psychological Society Education Section Conference, Lancaster, November 1, 2009. Lamb, M. E. Questioning child victims. Presentation to the CURE Conference on Children as Victims of Crime in the European Union, Stockholm, December 3-4, 2009.
Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate inter viewing: The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. 24th Annual San Diego International Conference on Child and Family Maltreatment, San Diego, January 26, 2010. Lamb, M. E. The importance of parent-child relationships. Presentation to the Arizona Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Phoenix (AZ), January 27, 2010. Lamb, M. E. Attachment issues in family law matters. Presentation to the Bay Area Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, San Jose (CA), January 29, 2010. Lamb, M. E. Confessions of a wondering wanderer (or wandering wonderer?). Keynote address to the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, Albuquerque (NM), February 19, 2010. Lamb, M. E. Childrens developmental needs in the context of family break-up. London Family Justice Conference, London, March 8, 2010. Malloy, L. C., Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Rothenberg, D. Discussion of secrets, threats, and fears in investigative interviews with children. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Vancouver (BC), March 18-20, 2010. Katz, C., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. Different ways to communicate resistance: Exploring verbal and non verbal cues within investigative interviews of abused children. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Vancouver (BC), March 18-20, 2010. Hershkowitz. I., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Katz, C., & Horowitz, D. The effect of motivational factors on the richness of childrens testimonies. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Vancouver (BC), March 18-20, 2010. Katz, C., Lamb, M. E., & Hershkowitz, I. The Revised NICHD Protocol and its effect on the way children disclose the allegation for the first time in investigative interviews. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Vancouver (BC), March 18-20, 2010. Malloy, L. C., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Walker, A. G. How do interviewers use and young children respond to How/Why/How Come in investigative interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Vancouver (BC), March 18-20, 2010. Lamb, M. E. Forensic interview protocols. Canadian Society for the Investigation of Child Abuse, Calgary, Canada, May 3-5, 2010. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate forensic interviewing: The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Master Class to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Stavern (Norway), June 20-21, 2010.
Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., & Katz, C. Enhancing abuse disclosure by reluctant children: A test of the revised NICHD Protocol. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Stavern (Norway), June 22, 2010. Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S., & Lamb, M. E. Exploring the dynamics of forensic interviews in which children mention difficulties and worries. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Stavern (Norway), June 22, 2010. Sim, M., Katz, C., Hershkowitz, I., & Lamb, M. E. Credibility assessment in credible and doubtful cases of child sexual abuse. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Stavern (Norway), June 22, 2010. van Gijn, E., Berridge, Z., Katz, C., & Lamb, M. E. Characteristics of perpetrators as portrayed by alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Stavern (Norway), June 22, 2010. LaRooy, D., Lamb, M. E., & Memon, A. Forensic interviews with children in Scotland: A survey of interview practices among police. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Stavern (Norway), June 22, 2010. Lamb, M. E. How much can young victims tell us about sexual abuse? Keynote address to the International Academy of Sex Research, Prague, July 25, 2010. Huang, C. Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. Acculturation and parenting styles in Chinese immigrants to the UK. Poster presentation to the British Psychological Association (Developmental Section) Annual meeting, London, September 2010. Yang, P. J., & Lamb, M. E. Regulatory functions during the transition to new school environments. Paper presented to the British Psychological Association (Developmental Section) Annual meeting, London, September 2010. Lamb, M. E. How much can young victims tell us about sexual abuse? Seminar on child victim interviewing, Institute for Psychology and Law at Hallym University and Korean Victimology Association, Seoul (Korea), September 8, 2010. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate investigative interviews. Masterclass, Institute for Psychology and Law at Hallym University, Seoul (Korea), September 9, 2010. Lamb, M. E. How much information can young children provide in forensic interviews. Public Family Law Seminars, Judicial Studies Board, Northampton, November 9, 2010 and January 11, 2011.
Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate interviews of alleged child victims. Ministry of Women and Family, Seoul (Korea), December 7-8, 2010. Li, X., & Lamb, M. E. Bridging tradition and modernity: Father-child affection in Chinese families. Paper presented to the Society for Cross-Cultural Research Conference, Charleston (SC), February 2011. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., & Katz, C. The effects of enhanced support during investigative interviews on the behaviour and informativeness of reluctant children. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Miami, March 2011. Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S. P., & Lamb, M. E. Do expected consequences of disclosure provide insight into delayed disclosure of child sexual abuse? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Miami, March 2011. Cederborg, A-C., Alm, C., da Silva Nises, D. L., & Lamb, M. E. Investigative interviewing of allegedly abused children: An evaluation of a new training programme for police officers in Sweden. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Miami, March 2011. Sim, M. P. Y., & Lamb, M. E. Childrens statements about alleged sexual abuse: A linguistic profile. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Miami, March 2011. Wachi, T., Watanabi, K., Sano, ., Otsuka, Y., Kuraishi, ., & Lamb, M. E. Police interviewing styles and confessions in Japan. Poster presentation to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Miami, March 2011. Yang, P. J. & Lamb, M. E. Is school stressful? Young childrens cortisol responses to their first school environments. Poster presentation to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Montreal, April 2, 2011. Huang, C-Y. S. & Lamb, M. E. What do mothers say about their parenting style? A comparison of the attitudes and behaviour of Chinese and English mothers. Poster presentation to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Montreal, April 1, 2011. Lamb, M. E. The need for developmentally appropriate interviewing. Paper presented to the Second International Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Porto, 13 May, 2011. Lamb, M. E. Angels, demons, dunces: Our inconsistent views of children in the legal system. Hay Festival, May 28, 2011. Van Gijn, E., & Lamb, M. E. The modus operandi of offenders of child sexual abuse as described by police officers. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Dundee (Scotland), June 1, 2011.
Sim, M., & Lamb, M. E. Police interviews with juvenile suspects: Self-reported practices and beliefs. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Dundee (Scotland), June 2, 2011. Wachi, T., Yokota, K., Otsuka, Y., Kuraishi, H., Watanabe, K., & Lamb, M. E. Japanese police officers feelings and beliefs after interrogation. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Dundee (Scotland), June 2, 2011. Cherson, M. J., & Lamb, M. E. Rapport-building: Understanding the first eight minutes. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Dundee (Scotland), June 2, 2011. Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S., & Lamb, M. E. Children discuss disclosure recipients in forensic interviews about suspected abuse. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Dundee (Scotland), June 2, 2011. Brubacher, S., Malloy, L. C., Roberts, K., & Lamb, M. E. Talking about repeated events: How interviewers and children organize memories of alleged multiple incidents of abuse. Paper presented to the Society for Applied Research on Memory and Cognition, New York City, June 2011. Lamb, M. E. Advanced workshop on developmentally appropriate forensic interviewing. National Center for Childrens Advocacy Centers, Huntsville (AL), August 30, 2011. Lamb, M. E. Child forensic interviewing. Presentation to Salt Lake County Childrens Justice Center Annual Multi-Disciplinary Team Conference, Sandy (UT), August 31, 2011. Yang, P. J., & Lamb, M. E. Effects of temperament and attachment on young children's first school experiences. 15th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Bergen (Norway), 24 August 2011. Huang, C.-Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. Chinese Immigrant mothers acculturation, parenting beliefs and parenting behaviours. Poster presented to the BPS Developmental Psychology Section Conference, Newcastle, 7 September 2011. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate forensic interviewing. Expert Lecture, 8th International Conference Helping children-victims of crime, Warsaw, October 25, 2011. Lamb, M. E. Interviewing children who are reluctant to disclose abuse. 8th International Conference Helping children-victims of crime, Warsaw, October 25, 2011. Lamb, M. E. How much can young victims tell us about sexual abuse? Public Family Law Seminars, Judicial College, Northampton, November 15, 2011, January 31, 2012, and February 28, 2012.
Lamb, M. E. Conducting developmentally appropriate forensic interviews. Masterclass, University of Abertay Dundee and Scotlands Child and Family Assessment Centre, Dundee, January 11-12, 2012. Spencer, J. R., Lamb, M. E., Rook, P., Pathak, M., & Monoghan, G. (Panel). Witnesses: Trials and tribulations. Inner Temple Education and Training, Northampton, February 11, 2012. Lamb, M. E. Can children be reliable witnesses? and Enhancing the informativeness of young victim witnesses. Law, Psychology and Human Development Distinguished Speaker Lectures, Cornell University, March 2, 2012. Sim, P.-Y. M., & Lamb, M. E. Police perceptions of interviews with juvenile suspects. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Puerto Rico, March 2012. Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. Reluctance and rapport building in forensic interviews with children. Poster presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Puerto Rico, March 2012. Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S. P., Lamb, M. E., Benton, P. How many and how often: Childrens use of number words and frequency estimations in forensic interviews. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Puerto Rico, March 2012. Wachi, T., & Lamb, M. E. Public opinion on Japanese interrogation techniques. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Toronto, May 23, 2012. van Gijn, E. L., & Lamb, M. E. Police officers experiences with alleged child sex offenders modus operandi. Paper presented to a conference on Research in forensic psychiatry, Regensburg, July 2012. Malloy, L. C., Katz, C., & Lamb, M. E. Childrens requests for clarification in investigative interviews about suspected child sexual abuse. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Orlando FL, August 3, 2012. Arseneau, C., Brubacher, S. P., Malloy, L. C., Lamb, M. E., & Roberts, K. P. Particularization of multiple incidents in forensic interviews with alleged child sex abuse victims. Poster presented at the 5e Colloque International sur les Entrevues dEnqute/5th International Conference on Investigative Interviewing, Nicolet, QC, Canada, September 2012. Yang, P. J., & Lamb, M. E. British children go to school. Paper presented to a symposium on The effect of early experiences on child development, Osnabruck, January 2013. Lamb, M. E. Discussant in Symposium on Research and policy on children in the courts, American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Portland, March 2013.
Villalba, D. K., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. Rapport building in investigative interviews with children. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Portland, March 2013. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Malloy, L. C., & Katz, C. Does enhanced focus on rapportbuilding affect the cooperativeness of reluctant children in forensic interview contexts? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Portland, March 2013. Mugno, A. P., Malloy, L. C., Katz, C., & Lamb, M. E. How do interviewers respond when children request clarification in investigative interviews? Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Portland, March 2013. Sim, P. Y. M., & Lamb, M. E. Police interviews with juveniles in the UK: Suspect demographics, interview failures, and interview outcomes. Paper presented to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Portland, March 2013. Lamb, M. E. Children and the law: Are our practices coherent? Invited plenary address to the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Portland, March 2013. Lamb, M. E. Beyond mothering to family relationships: Promoting psychological adjustment. Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture and Annual Conference, London, March 15, 2013. Huang, C.Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. Did children listen to their mums? Comparing parenting and child compliance in Taiwanese, immigrant Chinese and British families. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Seattle, April 18, 2013. Li, X., & Lamb, M. E. Do Chinese fathers say love? Expression of paternal affection in contemporary Chinese families. Poster presented to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Seattle, April 19, 2013. Mugno, A. P., Malloy, L. C., Katz, C., & Lamb, M. E. Childrens requests for clarification in investigative interviews. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Seattle, April 20, 2013. Sim, M. P., & Lamb, M. E. Police interviews with juveniles: Question types, interview factors and interview outcomes. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Maastricht, July 2, 2013. Yi, M. S., & Lamb, M. E. The effect of episodic memory training on childrens testimony. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Maastricht, July 2, 2013.
Wachi, T., & Lamb, M. E. Public opinions of Japanese interrogation techniques and their effect on penalties. Paper presented to the International Investigative Interview Research Group Annual Conference, Maastricht, July 2, 2013. Lamb, M. E. Childrens adjustment in non-traditional family contexts. Paper presented to the Second International Family Law and Practice Conference, London, July 3 2013. Lamb, M. E. Questioning young alleged victims of maltreatment. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Strasbourg, July 4 2013. Golombok, S. E., & Lamb, M. E. Gay and lesbian adoptive families. Keynote address to the Fourth International Conference on Adoption Research, Bilbao, July 8 2013. Lamb, M. E. Child sexual abuse: The disclosure wars. Keynote Address, Conference on the Forensic Interviewing of Children and People with Intellectual Disabilities in Sexual Abuse Cases, Modern Womens Foundation of Taiwan, Taipei, September 9, 2013. Andrews, S. J. & Lamb, M. E. The effects of age and delay on responses to repeated questions in forensic interviews with children alleging sexual abuse. Paper presented to the European Association of Psychology and Law annual conference, Coventry, September 2013. Lamb, M. E. Developmentally appropriate forensic interviews of alleged victims of sexual abuse. Invited workshop, 43rd Annual Conference of the Brazilian Psychological Association, Aracaju, 25 October 2013. Lamb, M. E. How might early out-of-home care affect the development of infants and toddlers? Keynote address, 43rd Annual Conference of the Brazilian Psychological Association, Aracaju, 25 October 2013. Earhart, R., La Rooy, D. J., Brubacher, S., Willemsen, K., & Lamb, M. E. The effect of the 'Don't Know' ground rule in forensic interviews with children. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, March 2014. Brown, D. A., Lamb, M. E., Lewis, C.N., Pipe, M.E., Orbach, Y., & Wolfman, M. Evaluating the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: A laboratory study. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, March 2014. Ahern, E. C., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., & Winstanley, A. V., & Blasbalg, U. Interviewer behavior and its effects on the reluctance of alleged child abuse victims: Comparing the Revised and Standard-NICHD Protocols. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, March 2014. Huang, C. Y. S., & Lamb, M. E. Cross-cultural differences in the use of disciplinary methods among Chinese, immigrant Chinese and English mothers. Paper presented to the 22nd International Congress for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Reims, France, July 2014.
Lamb, M. E. Children and the law: a developmental approach. G. Stanley Hall Award Lecture, American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Washington, August 2014. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & La Rooy, D. Developmentally appropriate investigative interviewing of suspected child abuse victims. Continuing education workshop, American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Washington, August 2014.
Departmental Colloquia Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, September 1975. Department of Child & Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 1976. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, March 1977. Department of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, WI, April 1977. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, June 1977. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 1977. Department of Psychology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, April 1978. Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, November 1978. Department of Psychology, University of Gteborg, Gteborg (Sweden), February 1979. School of Education, University of California -Los Angeles, March 1979. School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney (Australia), June 1979. School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney (Australia), June 1979. School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane (Australia), July 1979. Department of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra (Australia), July 1979. Department of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide (Australia), July 1979. School of Behavioural Sciences, LaTrobe University, Melbourne (Australia), July 1979. Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney (Australia), July 1979. Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, February 1980. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, March 1980. Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, April 1980. Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, October 1980. Department of Psychology (Clinical), City University of New York, New York City, December 1980. Department of Psychology, University of California at Riverside, April 1981. Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, November 1981.
Oranim, Center for Research on Kibbutz Education, Elroi Tivon, Israel, January 1982. School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, February 1982. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, September1983. Department of Psychology (Developmental Area), Stanford University, October 1983. Department of Pediatrics, Childrens Hospital, Buffalo, NY, October 1984. Department of Psychology, University of Gteborg, Gteborg (Sweden), February 1985. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development, Hokkaido University, Sapporo (Japan), June 1985. Department of Child Development and Family Studies, University of North CarolinaGreensboro, March 1986. Department of Applied Behavior Sciences, University of California-Davis, April 1986. Laboratory of Comparative Ethology, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, July 1986. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, December 1986. Department of Psychology, University of California-Berkeley, February 1987. Institute of Education, University of London (England), September 1987. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, October 1987. Department of Pediatrics (Division of Adolescent Medicine), University of Maryland, February 1988 Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, October 1988. Institute of Psychology, University of Gteborg, Gteborg (Sweden), January 1989. Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, February 1989. Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences, University of California-Davis, February 1989. Life Cycle Research Institute, Catholic University, Washington, February 1989. Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, November 1989. Institute of Education, University of London (England), January 1990. Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Israel), January 1990.
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, February 1990. School of Social Work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Israel), March 1990. Department of Psychology, University of Padova, Padua (Italy), September 1990. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 1991. Department of Psychology, Laval University, Qubec City (Canada), March 1992. Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, July 1992. Center for Family in Society, University of South Carolina, Columbia, November 1992. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland at Baltimore County, February 1993. Department of Psychology, University College of North Wales, Bangor (United Kingdom), April 1994. Department of Psychology, Laval University, Qubec City (Canada), December 1994. Department of Psychology, University of (Sweden), September 1995. Laboratoire de recherche en cologie humaine et sociale, Universit de Qubec Montral, Montral (Canada), October 1995. Department of Psychology, University of Gteborg, Gteborg (Sweden), October 1995. Fachgebiet Entwicklungspsychologie (Department of Developmental Psychology), Universitt Osnabrck, Osnabrck (Germany), November 1995. Department of Psychology and School of Social Work, University of Utah, February 1996. Institute for Behavioral Research, University of Georgia, Athens, February 1996. Institute of Psychology, Martin-Luther Universitt-Halle, Halle (Germany), October 1996. Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC, February 1997. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, April 1997. Department of Human Development, University of Maryland at College Park, December 1997. Baltimore County Child Advocacy Center, Towson MD, December 1998.
Department of Developmental Psychology, Ruhr University of Bochum, Bochum (Germany), December 1998. Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, February 1999. Department of Psychology, University of Lancaster, December 2003. Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, March 2004. First Annual Zangwill-Bartlett Lecture, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, January 2006. Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, January 31, 2006. Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, June 15, 2006. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Oxford University, June 20, 2006. Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Linkoping (Sweden), September 22, 2006. Child Study Centre, Yale University, April 24, 2007. Developmental Psychopathology Group, University of Manchester, February 20, 2008. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Oxford University, December 2, 2008. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, February 5, 2009. Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, May 20, 2009. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 28 January 2010. National Association of Parenting Researchers, Kings College London, 26 April 2010. Department of Developmental Psychiatry, Cambridge University, 26 January 2011. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, 21 January 2011. Institute for Applied Psychology, Lisbon, 18 February 2011. Centre dexpertise Marie-Vincent, Montreal, 30 March 2011. Department of Child and Youth Studies, University of Stockholm, 27 October 2011. Department of Psychology, Florida International University, 25 March 2013.
Exhibit B
REFERENCES Factors predicting childrens adjustment (general sources) Bornstein, M., & Lamb, M.E. (Eds.) (2011). Developmental Science (6th ed.). New York and Hove UK: Taylor and Francis. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399. Damon, W., & Lerner, R. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology (4 volumes; Sixth edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Golombok, S. (2000). Parenting: What really counts. Hove UK: Psychology Press. Lamb, M.E. (Ed.) (1999). Parenting and child development in non-traditional families. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. Lamb, M.E. (Ed.) (2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting childrens adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 98-111. Lerner, R. M., Lamb, M. E., & Freund, A. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of lifespan development. Vol. 2. Social and emotional development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Parke, R. D. (2013). Future families. Hoboken NJ: Wiley. Smith, P. K., & Hart, C. H. (Eds.) (2010). Blackwell handbook of childhood social development. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Weiner, I. (Ed.) (2013). Handbook of Psychology (12 volumes; Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. The sexual orientation of parents does not predict their childrens adjustment Arranz Freijo, E., Bellido, A., Manzano, A., Martin, J. L., & Artetsxe, F. (2008). Assessment of new family structures as childrearing contexts which foster childrens psychological adjustment. Final Report. San Sebastian: University of the Basque Country. Averett, P., Nalavany, B., & Ryan, S. (2009). An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 129-151. Baetens, P., & Brewaeys, A. (2001). Lesbian couples requesting DI, an update of the knowledge with regard to lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction Update, 7(5), 512-519. 1
Bos, H. (2004). Parenting in planned lesbian families. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA. Bos, H., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38-48. Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., Van Hall, E.V., & Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination: Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction, 12, 1349-1359. Brewaeys, A., & Van Hall, E. V. (1997). Lesbian motherhood: The impact on child development and family functioning. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 18, 1-16. Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Development, 69, 443-457. Chan, R. W., Brooks, R. C., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children's adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 402-419. Erich, S., Kanenberg, H., Case, K., Allen, T., & Bogdanos, T. (2009). An empirical analysis of factors affecting adolescent attachment in adoptive families with homosexual and straight parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 398404. Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14, 164-178. Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted childrens outcomes. Child Development, 84, 1226-1240. Gartrell, N., & Bos, H. (2010). US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics, 126, 28-36. Golombok, S. & Badger, S. (2010). Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers in early adulthood. Human Reproduction, 25, 150-157. Golombok, S. E., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (in press). Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children's psychological adjustment. Child Development. Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M. & Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 20-33. 2
Golombok, S., Spencer, A. & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 24, 551-572. Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 3-11. Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (2010). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Golombok, S., Tasker, F., & Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: Family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38, 783-792. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting childrens adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 98-111. MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1407-1419. Oliva, A., Arranz, E., Parra, A., & Olabarrieta, F. (in press) Family structure and child adjustment in Spain. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Patterson, C. J. (1995). Sexual orientation and human development: An overview. Developmental Psychology, 31, 3-11. Patterson, C. J. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parents' division of labor and children's adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 115-123. Patterson, C. J. (1996). Lesbian mothers and their children: Findings from the Bay Area Families Study. In J. Laird & R. J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and Gays in Couples and Families: A Handbook for Therapists (pp. 420-437). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Patterson, C. J. (1997). Children of lesbian and gay parents. In T. Ollendick & R. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, (Vol. 19; pp. 235-282). New York: Plenum Press. Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052-1069. Patterson, C. J. (2001). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Maternal mental health and child adjustment. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 4, 91-107.
Patterson, C. J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241-244. Patterson, C. J., and Chan, R. W. (1999). Families headed by lesbian and gay parents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (2d ed.). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. Patterson, C. J., Fulcher, M., & Wainright, J. (2002). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Research, law, and policy. In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, and B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, social science and the law (pp. 176-199). New York: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, C. J., Hurt, S., & Mason, C. D. (1998). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Children's contacts with grandparents and other adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 390-399. Patterson, C. J., & Redding, R. (1996). Lesbian and gay families with children: Public policy implications of social science research. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 29-50. Patterson, C.J. & Wainright, J. (2011). Adolescents with same-sex parents: Findings from the national Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. In D. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Dimension in Family Diversity. New York: Oxford University Press. Potter, D. (2012).Same-sex parent families and childrens academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 556-571. Rosenfeld, M.J. (2010). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography, 47, 755-775. Tan, T.X., & Baggerly, J. (2009). Behavioral adjustment of adopted Chinese girls in single-mother, lesbian-couple, and heterosexual-couple households. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 171-186. Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 224-40. Tasker, F. & Golombok, S. (1997) Growing up in a Lesbian Family. Guilford Press, New York. Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002). What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family created by means of donor insemination? Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology, 20, 237-252. Vanfraussen, K., Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2003). Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 78-90.
Wainright, J.L. & Patterson, C.J. (2006). Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 526-530. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology, 44, 117-126. Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886-1898. Same sex couples can provide stable environments within which children can thrive Erich, S., Kanenberg, H., Case, K., Allen, T., & Bogdanos, T. (2009). An empirical analysis of factors affecting adolescent attachment in adoptive families with homosexual and straight parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 398404. Goldberg, A.E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812-828. Graham, J. M., & Barnow, Z. B. (2013). Stress and social support in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples: Direct effects and buffering models. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 569-578. Kurdek, L.A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting families really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880-900. Kurdek, L.A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251-254. Kurdek, L.A. (2006). Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1-20. Kurdek, L. A. (2003). Differences between gay and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 411-436. Kurdek, L. A. (2006). The nature and correlates of deterrents to leaving a relationship. Personal Relationships, 13, 521-535. Kurdek, L. A. (2007). The allocation of household labor by partners in gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 132-148. Kurdek, L. A. (2007). Avoidance motivation and relationship commitment in heterosexual, gay male, and lesbian partners. Personal Relationships, 13, 521535.
Kurdek, L. A. (2008). Change in relationship quality for partners from lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 701-711. Kurdek, L. A. (2009). Assessing the health of a dyadic relationship in heterosexual and same-sex partners. Personal Relationships, 16, 117-127. Patterson, C. J. (1996). Lesbian mothers and their children: Findings from the Bay Area Families Study. In J. Laird & R. J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists (pp. 420-437). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Children do not need dual-gendered parenting in order to be well adjusted Kiernan, K. E., & Mensah, F. K. (2010). Unmarried parenthood, family trajectories, parent and child well-being. In K. Hansen, H. Joshi, & S. Dex (Eds.), Children of the 21st century: From birth to age 5 (pp. 77-94). London: Policy Press. Lamb, M. E. (2002). Nonresidential fathers and their children. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 169-184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lamb, M. E. (2013). The changing faces of fatherhood and father-child relationships: From fatherhood as status to father as dad. In M. A. Fine & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories: A content-based approach (pp. 87-102). New York: Routledge. Lamb, M. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2009). Improving the quality of parent-child contact in separating families with infants and young children: Empirical research foundations. In R. M. Galatzer-Levy, L. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions (2d ed.; pp. 187-214). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Non-biologically related parents are capable of raising children as effectively as biological parents Brodzinsky, D. & Palacios, J. (Eds.) (2005). Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice. London: Praeger. Freeman, T. & Golombok, S. (2012) Donor insemination: A follow up study of disclosure decisions, child adjustment and family relationships at adolescence. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 25, 193-203. Golombok, S. (2013). Families created by reproductive donation: Issues and research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 61-65. Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. (1995). Families created by the new reproductive technologies: Quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the child. Child Development, 66, 285-298. 6
Golombok, S., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., Muray, C., & MacCallum, F. (2004). Families created by gamete donation: follow-up at age 2. Human Reproduction. 20, 286293. Golombok, S., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., Jadva, V., Murray, C., Rust, J. Abdalla, H., Jenkins, J., & Margara, R. (2004). Parenting infants conceived by gamete donation. Journal of Family Psychology. 18, 443-452. Golombok, S., MacCallum, Goodman, E., & Rutter, M. (2002). Families with children conceived by donor insemination: A follow up at age twelve. Child Development, 73, 952-968. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Brinsden, P., & Abdalla, H. (1999). Social versus biological parenting: Family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 519-527. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2006). Nongenetic and non-gestational parenthood: consequences for parent-child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Human Reproduction, 21, 1918-1924. Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W. & Golombok, S. (2009). The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Human Reproduction, 24, 1909-1919. Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Adoptees do not lack self esteem: A metaanalysis of studies of self-esteem of transracial, international, and domestic adoptees. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1067-1083. Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family structure matter? A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single mother, stepfather, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 840-851. MacCullum, F., & Keeley, S. (2007). Embryo donation families: A follow-up in middle childhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 840-851. Palacios, J., & Brodzinsky, D.M. (2010). Adoption research: Trends, topics, and outcomes. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 34, 270-284. Stams, G.J.J. M., Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2002). Maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment to middle childhood: The case of adopted children and their biologically unrelated parents. Developmental Psychology, 38, 806-821. Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2006). Adoption as intervention: Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and plasticity in physical, socio-emotional, and 7
cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 12281245. Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Juffer, F., & Klien Poelhuis, C.W. (2005). Adoption and cognitive development: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and non-adopted childrens IQ and school performance. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 301-306. Miscellaneous Pennsylvania Census Snapshot: 2010, The Williams Institute. Available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census2010Snapshot _Pennsylvania_v2.pdf. Plaintiffs amended complaint in this case. Defendants response to plaintiffs interrogatories in this case.
EXHIBIT PX-06
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, FREDIA HURDLE and LYNN HURDLE, EDWIN HILL and DAVID PALMER, HEATHER POEHLER and KATH POEHLER, FERNANDO CHANG-MUY and LEN RIESER, DAWN PLUMMER and DIANA POLSON, ANGELA GILLEM and GAIL LLOYD, HELENA MILLER and DARA RASPBERRY, RON GEBHARDTSBAUER and GREG WRIGHT, MARLA CATTERMOLE and JULIA LOBUR, SANDY FERLANIE and CHRISTINE DONATO, MAUREEN HENNESSEY, and A.W. AND K.W., minor children, by and through their parents and next friends, DEB WHITEWOOD and SUSAN WHITEWOOD, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL WOLF, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Health; DAN MEUSER, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Revenue; and DONALD PETRILLE, JR., in his official capacity as Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court of Bucks County, Defendants. EXPERT REPORT OF LETITIA ANNE PEPLAU I, Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., hereby declare and state that I am an adult over the age of 18 and am competent to testify to the following matters if called as a witness: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. My professional background, experience, and publications are detailed in my
curriculum vitae, a true and accurate copy which is attached as Exhibit A to this report. I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs as an expert in connection with the above-captioned
litigation. I have actual knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could and would so testify if called as a witness. 2. I was a Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles
beginning in 1973, with promotions to tenure in 1978, to full professor in 1982, and to Distinguished Professor in 2010. From 2005-2011, I served as Director of the UCLA Interdisciplinary Relationship Science Program. This program, funded by the National Science Foundation, trained doctoral students in the study of families and other personal relationships. I formally retired from UCLA in June 2011, but am continuing to work at UCLA as Distinguished Research Professor and as the Psychology Department Vice Chair for Graduate Studies. 3. In broad terms, my research addresses topics concerning personal relationships,
gender, and sexual orientation. I have conducted research on heterosexual couples, co-authored a book entitled Close Relationships, and published articles comparing empirical findings about men's and women's experiences in close relationships. In the 1970s, I was one of the first researchers to conduct empirical investigations of the intimate relationships of lesbians and gay men, and I have continued this program of research for the past 35 years. In addition, I have written several major reviews of the scientific research on same-sex relationships, including a 2007 article in the Annual Review of Psychology and a 2009 article in the Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. I have also conducted empirical studies on gay and lesbian identity. 4. I received my B.A. in Honors Psychology from Brown University in 1968 and
my Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Harvard University in 1973. As reflected in my curriculum vitae (Exhibit A), I have published more than 120 papers in scholarly journals and scholarly books, primarily in the field of couple relationships. I have co-authored or co-edited over 10 books, and I have frequently presented my research at universities and scientific meetings. 5. My expertise extends beyond the specific areas addressed in my own empirical
research program to include other theory and empirical research related to sexual orientation and same-sex relationships. A broad knowledge of this area has been necessary not only for my own scholarship, but also for successfully completing my professional duties as a teacher, as Director 2
of the UCLA Interdisciplinary Relationship Science Program, and as a reviewer of academic journals and book manuscripts. 6. As a result of my research and other accomplishments, I have received several
professional awards. I have been elected a fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the Association for Psychological Science. I have received lifetime achievement awards from the American Psychological Association, the International Association for Relationship Research, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. I also had the honor of being elected president of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships (an organization since renamed the International Association for Relationship Research). 7. In preparing this report, I reviewed the materials listed in the attached
Bibliography (Exhibit B). I may rely on those documents, in addition to the documents specifically cited as supportive examples in particular sections of this report, as additional support for my opinions. For the documents from websites that I have cited, I have listed the true and complete web address and the date I last accessed those documents in my report. I have also relied on my years of experience in this field, as set out in my curriculum vitae (Exhibit A), and on the materials listed therein. The materials I have relied upon in preparing this report are the same types of materials that experts in my field of study regularly rely upon when forming opinions on the subject. 8. In the past four years, I have testified as an expert either at trial or through
declaration or been deposed as an expert in In the Matter of the Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G. in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 06-43881 FC 04, Cole v. The Arkansas Department of Human Services in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Case No. CV2008-14284, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F.Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012), Windsor v. U.S., 833 F. Supp .2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F. Supp. 2d 294, 2012 WL 3113883 (D. Conn. 2012), Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d 944, 2012 WL 1909603 (N.D. Cal. 2012), 3
Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Case No. BDV-2010-702, Sevcik v. Sandoval, No. 2:12-CV-00578-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. 2012), and Darby v. Orr, Lazaro v. Orr, Nos. 12 CH 19718 & 19719 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty). 9. I am being compensated an hourly rate for actual time devoted, at the rate of
$300.00 per hour for preparation of reports and for testimony. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 10. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or
sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Most adults are attracted to and form relationships with members of only one sex. Efforts to change a person's sexual orientation through religious or psychotherapy interventions have not been shown to be effective. 11. It is well-established that homosexuality is a normal expression of human
sexuality. It is not a mental illness, and being gay or lesbian has no inherent association with a person's ability to lead a happy, healthy, and productive life or to contribute to society. 12. Research shows that same-sex couples closely resemble heterosexual couples.
Like their heterosexual counterparts, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals form loving, long lasting relationships with a partner. 13. Marriage provides a range of social and other benefits and protections to spouses.
These contribute to enhanced psychological well-being, physical health, and longevity among married individuals. Same-sex couples are therefore harmed by being excluded from marriage. 14. In the United States, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals experience pervasive
social stigma and the added stress that results from prejudice and discrimination. Stigma is reflected both in acts of individuals and in the institutions of society, including its laws, that legitimate and perpetuate the second-class status of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Pennsylvanias exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage both reflects and perpetuates stigma against lesbians, gay men, and same-sex couples. The stigma and discrimination 4
perpetuated by Pennsylvanias exclusion harm not only same-sex couples, but gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals as a group. 15. There is no scientific support for the notion that allowing same-sex couples to
marry would harm different-sex relationships or marriages. The factors that affect the quality, stability, and longevity of different-sex relationships would not be affected by marriages of same-sex couples. OPINIONS I. Understanding Sexual Orientation A. 16. What Is Sexual Orientation? The American Psychological Association provides a widely accepted definition of
sexual orientation: Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. 1 17. Beginning with the research of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, researchers have
recognized that sexual orientation can range along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual. Nonetheless, it is most often discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having attractions to members of one's own sex), and bisexual (having attractions to both men and women). Most adults in the United States can readily categorize themselves as heterosexual, gay/lesbian, or bisexual. 2 The specific category name that an individual prefers (e.g., homosexual, gay) may vary, 3 but in national surveys in the U.S., nearly all participants are able to indicate their sexual orientation category.
American Psychological Association, 2008; Herek, 2000. See, e.g., Chandra, Mosher, Copen & Sionean, 2011, pp 29-30; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michaels, 1994, p. 293. 3 See, e.g., Herek, Norton, Allen & Sims, 2010. 5
1 2
18.
For clarity, it is important to distinguish sexual orientation from other aspects of
sex and gender. These include biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (an individual's psychological sense of being male or female), and gender-role orientation (the extent to which an individual conforms to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine behavior). 19. Sexual orientation is inherently linked to social relationships. Sexual orientation is
a characteristic of an individual, like his or her biological sex, age, or race, and it is also about relationships whether an individual is attracted sexually or romantically to partners of the same sex or different sex. 4 Just as heterosexual individuals often express their sexual orientation through relationships including marriage with a different-sex partner, so gay and lesbian individuals express their sexual orientation through relationships including marriage (where possible) with a same-sex partner. Further, sexual orientation is not merely about sexual behavior but also about building enduring intimate relationships. In other words, sexual orientation is centrally linked to the most important personal relationships that adults form with other adults in order to meet their basic human needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. These relationships, whether with a same-sex or different-sex partner, are an essential part of an individual's personal identity. B. 21. Can Sexual Orientation Be Changed? The precise factors that cause an individual to be heterosexual, homosexual, or
bisexual are still being researched. Much research has examined possible genetic, prenatal hormonal, developmental, and social influences on sexual orientation, and many scientists view sexual orientation as resulting from the interplay of those factors. 5 22. A consistent finding across many studies, beginning with the work of Alfred
Kinsey in the 1940s and 1950s and continuing through current research, is that most adults report
4 5
Peplau & Cochran, 1990; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007. American Psychological Association, 2008. 6
having sexual attractions to and experiences with members of only one sex. 6 As adults, the majority of these individuals have had exclusively heterosexual experiences and attraction, and a minority have had exclusively same-sex experiences and attraction. A small percentage of adults report sexual attractions and experiences with both sexes. 23. The significant majority of adults exhibit a consistent and enduring sexual
orientation. 7 The fact that many lesbian and gay adults form long-term intimate relationships with a partner of the same sex, 8 just as heterosexual adults do with a partner of the other sex, provides evidence of the stability of sexual orientation over time. Nonetheless, a small minority of individuals are exceptions to this majority pattern. For example, some individuals have reported changes in their sexual orientation in midlife, perhaps as a result of meeting a particular person. Understanding these kinds of exceptions to the general pattern of stable sexual orientation described above is of theoretical interest to scholars. Researchers have used terms like sexual fluidity or sexual plasticity to refer to changes in sexual behavior, attractions, and identity over time or across situations. Importantly, observations about fluidity in a small minority of people should not obscure the big picture of stability for the majority of adults. In a discussion of women's sexual fluidity, Peplau and Garnets 9 noted: Claims about the potential erotic plasticity of women do not mean that most women will actually exhibit change over time. At a young age, many women adopt patterns of heterosexuality that are stable across their lifetime. Some women adopt enduring patterns of same-sex attractions and relationships. Nor does the fact that a small minority of people may experience some change in their sexual orientation over their lifetime suggest that such change is within their power to affect, let alone that individuals outside this small minority have the power to change voluntarily their sexual orientation. This is why standard definitions of sexual orientation characterize it as stable.
Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin & Gebhard, 1953; Laumann, et al., 1994; Chandra, et al., 2011. 7 Chandra et al. 2011. 8 Carpenter & Gates, 2008; see also Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007. 9 Peplau & Garnets, 2000, p. 333. 7
24.
Before the emergence of gay communities in the United States, it was fairly
common for lesbians and gay men to marry a person of the other sex. 10 They entered these ostensibly heterosexual marriages for diverse reasons: to avoid social stigma, in response to pressure from family and friends, from a belief that marriage was the only way to have children, and/or to participate in a fundamental social institution. In some cases, these individuals only recognized or acknowledged their sexual orientation after marriage. It is psychologically harmful to ask lesbians and gay men to deny a core part of who they are by ignoring their attraction to same-sex partners and instead marrying a different-sex partner. Moreover, the disclosure that a spouse is gay or lesbian is often hurtful to the heterosexual spouse, highly upsetting to their children or other family members, and frequently sets the stage for separation or divorce. Therefore, encouraging gay men and lesbians to enter into a marriage with a heterosexual partner is not in the best interests of the individuals or the interests of society. 25. When gay men and lesbians are asked by researchers about their sexual
orientation, the vast majority report that they experienced no choice or very little choice about their sexual orientation. In a national survey conducted with a representative sample of more than 650 self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, 95% of the gay men and 83% of the lesbians reported that they experienced no choice at all or very little choice about their sexual orientation. 11 26. Sexual orientation is highly resistant to change through psychological or religious
interventions. In 2007, the American Psychological Association appointed a task force to conduct a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change
10
Bozett, 1982; Higgins, 2006. Researchers have estimated the percentage of lesbians and gay men who have been married. An analysis of responses to a 2003 survey of adults in California found that about 25% of lesbians and 9% of gay men ages 18-59 reported having ever been married, most of them presumably to a person of the other sex (Carpenter & Gates, 2008, Table 3). 11 Herek, Norton, Allen & Sims, 2010. In that survey, 88% of gay men reported that they had no choice, and 7% reported very little choice. Similarly, 68% of lesbians responded that they had no choice at all, and 15% reported having very little choice. See also results from a California survey by Herek, Gillis & Cogan, 2009, Table 5. 8
efforts. 12 The Task Force concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm (p. 3). Based on currently available research, there is no credible evidence that these efforts are either effective or safe, and ample reason to believe that these interventions can harm those who participate. 13 The Task Force also found evidence that many individuals who unsuccessfully attempt to change their sexual orientation experience considerable psychological distress including anxiety, depression, thoughts of suicide, and sexual dysfunction. 27. Currently, no major mental health professional organization has approved
interventions to change sexual orientation, and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments. 14 These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, and National Association of Social Workers. Further, since adolescents may be
APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, 2009, Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. This report provides a detailed review and analysis of relevant research. Available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf. 13 Although some psychotherapists and religious counselors have reported changing their clients sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, empirical support for these claims is lacking. After reviewing published empirical research on this topic, the APA Task Force reported that it found serious methodological problems in this area of research, such that only a few studies met the minimal standards for evaluating whether psychological treatments, such as efforts to change sexual orientation, are effective (p. 2). Based on its review of the studies that met acceptable standards, the Task Force concluded that enduring change to an individuals sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] and did not report significant change to other-sex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare. Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE (pp. 2-3). 14 These policy statements are compiled in Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel, a publication that is available from the Just the Facts Coalition on the American Psychological Associations website: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf. 9
12
subjected to these treatments after disclosing to their families that they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, the American Academy of Pediatrics has adopted a policy statement advising that therapy directed specifically at attempting to change an adolescent's sexual orientation should be avoided and is unlikely to result in change. The Pan American Health Organization, which is the World Health Organizations regional office for the Americas and the oldest public health organization in the world, has stated that there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of efforts to change sexual orientation. 15 28. In summary, there is convergent scientific evidence documenting that sexual
orientation reflects an enduring set of attractions and experiences for most people. Efforts to change a persons sexual orientation through religious or psychotherapy interventions have not been shown to be effective. II. Sexual Orientation Does Not Affect a Persons Ability to Function Effectively 29. The consensus view of scientific researchers and mental health professionals is
that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality. Homosexuality is not a mental illness, and being gay or lesbian has no inherent association with a person's ability to participate in or contribute to society. 16 Lesbians and gay men are as capable as heterosexuals of leading happy, healthy, and productive lives. They are also as capable as heterosexuals of doing well in their jobs and of excelling in school. 30. Although homosexuality was once believed to be a mental illness, that mistaken
view was discredited by scientific research beginning in the 1970s. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, noting that homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities. 17 In 1975, the American
15 16 17
Pan American Health Organization, 2012. Herek, 2010; Herek & Garnets, 2007. American Psychiatric Association, 1974. For other resolutions by this organization, see http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx. 10
Psychological Association endorsed this position and urged psychologists to help educate the public and to dispel the stigma of mental illness associated with homosexuality. 18 31. Gay and lesbian individuals are subject to the same stresses of life as their
heterosexual counterparts, including the death of a close relative, loss of a job, or a serious illness. Research consistently demonstrates that high levels of stress are harmful not only to psychological well-being but also to physical health. 19 In addition to the life stresses that can affect everyone, members of stigmatized minority groups, including gay men and lesbians as well as ethnic/racial minorities, may experience additional stress caused by prejudice and discrimination. This has been termed minority stress. 20 This excess stress has been associated with an increased risk of psychological problems, especially those like anxiety and depression that are most closely linked to stress. 21 Despite the pervasive social stigma against homosexuality and the resulting unique social stressors lesbians and gay men experience, the vast majority of lesbian and gay individuals cope successfully with these challenges and lead healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives. And there is nothing about sexual orientation itself whether one is heterosexual or homosexual that makes a person more or less able to contribute to or participate in society. 32. Research documents that the psychological well-being of lesbians and gay men is
enhanced by having positive feelings about being gay, having developed a positive sense of gay identity, and being open about their sexual orientation with important other people, such as family members. 22
18
Conger, 1975. Also, the American Psychological Association has endorsed several resolutions concerning sexual orientation. These can be found at: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/index.aspx (last accessed February 7, 2013) 19 Thoits, 2010. 20 Meyer, 2003, 2007. 21 Herek & Garnets, 2007; Pascoe & Richman, 2009. 22 Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 2003; Pachankis, 2007; Pascoe & Richman, 2009. 11
III.
Scientific Research Into Same-Sex Couples Relationships Establishes That They Closely Resemble Different-Sex Couples Relationships 33. Negative stereotypes about same-sex couples are common in America, leading
many people to believe and argue that same-sex relationships are fundamentally different from, and inferior to, heterosexual relationships. But the consensus of the scientific research is that this characterization is inaccurate. 34. Lesbians and gay men are as able to form loving, committed relationships with a
same-sex partner as are heterosexuals in committed relationships with a different-sex partner. Empirical research has repeatedly shown that gay men and lesbians have happy, satisfying relationships. 23 Like their heterosexual counterparts, lesbians and gay men form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Research documents striking similarities between same-sex and heterosexual couples on standardized measures of love, relationship satisfaction, and relationship adjustment. The extensive body of research that examines the quality and functioning of same-sex relationships demonstrates that same-sex couples are not inherently different from heterosexual couples. To the contrary, same-sex couples closely resemble heterosexual couples, and the processes that affect both types of relationships are remarkably similar. 24 35. Lesbians and gay men, like heterosexuals, value committed relationships and a
majority would like to marry. Even before marriage became a possibility for same-sex couples in any state, in a national survey, 25 74% of lesbians and gay men said that if they could legally marry someone of the same sex, they would like to do so. 36. Scientific research consistently shows that many same-sex couples have stable,
long-term relationships 26 and that the same factors that contribute to commitment and stability in different-sex couples apply to same-sex couples. One factor is the quality of a couple's relationship as reflected in factors as satisfaction, love and relationship adjustment. As noted
23 24
Kurdek, 2004, 2005; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007. American Psychological Association, 2004. 25 Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001. 26 See, e.g., Balsam, et al., 2008; Kurdek, 2004, Ross et al., 2011 12
above, research shows that, on average, same-sex and different-sex relationships are equally satisfying and well-adjusted. Couples with more satisfying relationships are more likely to stay together than other couples, regardless of sexual orientation. A second factor that contributes to commitment and stability within different-sex and same-sex couples alike are barriers that make it difficult for a person to leave a relationship. Couples who decide to own joint property, make personal sacrifices for the sake of the relationship, or choose to begin a family through birth or adoption create important barriers to ending the relationship. The more a couple has invested in a relationship in terms of time, energy and resources, the more they stand to lose if the relationship ends. Research demonstrates that, as with their heterosexual counterparts, lesbians and gay men who perceive more barriers to terminating a relationship are more likely to remain together. In addition, as discussed more fully below, certain demographic characteristics of different-sex couples are consistently correlated with breakup rates (e.g. their age at marriage, race, level of income and education, and religious affiliation). It is likely that the same demographic characteristics that predict stability and instability in different-sex couples also apply to same-sex couples. 37. In 2004, based on a review of research on marriage and same-sex relationships,
the American Psychological Association passed a Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage, 27 in which it concluded that many lesbians and gay men have formed durable relationships and the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples. IV. Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Causes Them Harm 38. There is widespread consensus among social science researchers that marriage
generally provides many benefits to both spouses. A large body of scientific research comparing heterosexuals who are currently married to those who are not married establishes that marriage
27
American Psychological Association, 2004. 13
fosters psychological well-being, physical health, and longevity. 28 Of course, marriages that are unhappy, conflict-ridden, or violent do not provide the same benefits as the average marriage. 39. Studies consistently associate marriage with better health and greater longevity;
marriage also has a moderating effect on individual risk-taking behavior. 29 Illustrative data come from a report by the U.S. Center for Disease Control. 30 Using a large national database, CDC researchers found that regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, or income, married adults were on average healthier than cohabiting, divorced, widowed, or never married adults. Married individuals reported lower rates of smoking, drinking heavily, or being physically inactive (although married men were more likely to be overweight than other men). Married adults also reported lower rates of being limited in their daily activities of living, being in poor health, or suffering from headaches or serious psychological distress. Other research using national data reliably demonstrates that, on average, married individuals live longer than unmarried individuals. 40. Marriage is also associated with enhanced psychological well-being. On average,
married individuals report less anxiety and depression and greater happiness and satisfaction with life than do unmarried individuals. 31 41. There are two explanations for the clear differences observed between married
and unmarried individuals. 32 One explanation is known as the selection effect: to some extent, individuals with better mental and physical health are more likely to choose to marry and/or better able to attract a partner and maintain a relationship over time. Using a variety of research methods, researchers have demonstrated that the selection effect only partially accounts for the
E.g., Cherlin, 2009; Johnson, et al., 2000; Kim & McKenry, 2002; Lamb, Lee,& DeMaris, 2003; Nock, 1995; Proulx, et al., 2007; Schoenborn, 2004; Umberson, 1992; Waite, 1995. 29 Hu & Goldman, 1990; Johnson et al., 2000; Waite, 1995; Waldron, Hughes, & Brook, 1996. 30 Schoenborn, 2004. Marital status and health: United States, 1999-2002. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Number 351, December 15, 2004. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 31 Kim & McKenry, 2002; Lamb, Lee,& DeMaris, 2003;Proulx, et al., 2007; Waite, 1995. 32 Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1990; Kim & McKenry, 2002; Lamb, Lee,& DeMaris, 2003; Waldron, Hughes, & Brook, 1996. 14
28
physical and psychological differences found between married and unmarried individuals. These research methods include longitudinal studies of the effects of marriage over time, longitudinal studies of transitions into or out of marriage, and studies that statistically control for factors such as income that are known to be associated with health. 42. The second explanation for the positive physical and psychological benefits of
marriage is known as the protection effect. 33 There are many ways in which marriage can provide protective benefits that contribute to the health and well-being of spouses. The marriage relationship is a social union and a legal contract that creates a well-recognized and valued kinship relationship. Marriage binds spouses not only to each other but can also bind individuals to the broader community, which understands, appreciates, and values the significance of the marriage relationship. Marriage often provides individuals with a sense of obligation to others, which gives life meaning beyond oneself. 34 For many people, marriage has great symbolic significance, establishing that the individual has a new social identity and is part of a valued and respected social institution. 43. In addition, marriage often entails a moral commitment by spouses to support
each other in sickness and in health. Spouses often help each other to adopt more healthful lifestyles, cope with the stress and uncertainty of life, and recuperate from illness and injury. 44. The security of marriage often enables spouses to adopt a long-term perspective,
putting off immediate rewards to build a future life together and encouraging mutual sacrifice. This has been referred to as enforceable trust. 35 45. One way that couples express the symbolic significance of their marriage is
through a wedding ceremony. Although cultures have differing traditions and individual couples may choose to depart from certain customs and traditions, the celebration of a wedding is a ritual that is important to the couple, their respective families, and the larger community. Wedding Cherlin, 2009;Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1984; Kim & McKenry, 2002; Lamb, Lee,& DeMaris, 2003; Waldron, Hughes, & Brook, 1996. 34 Waite, 1995. 35 Cherlin, 2009. 15
33
ceremonies are typically state-sanctioned public rituals that signify not only the joining together of the spouses, but the creation of new extended families and in-laws with shared interests and mutual obligations. The formation of a marriage transforms biological strangers into kin. Wedding ceremonies usually also involve members of the broader community friends, coworkers, neighbors who come together to recognize the new status of the couple and their changed position in their community. 46. Marriage is widely regarded as one of the most important rites of passage for
adulthood, and it marks a major transition in a persons life. For many, marriage signifies entry into full adulthood, with expectations that the individual will act in more mature ways. The sense of being a responsible adult may be one reason why married individuals engage in less risky behavior than their unmarried peers. The marriage relationship itself is associated with certain duties and responsibilities for example, that spouses should care for each other and build a life together. 47. When a couple marries, they may bring with them separate networks of family,
friends, and others who can support them in time of need. Marriage often merges these support networks, expanding the circle of valued confidants, help givers, and others who are available to the couple. Marriage typically involves spouses in new sets of social obligations: the new responsibilities of each spouse toward their in-laws are complemented by the obligations of the extended family to support the married couple. 48. Social support is central to the institution of marriage. Compared to unmarried
individuals, married adults tend to receive more social support from other people, especially from their parents, and this support contributes to individual well-being. The public aspect of marriage can increase each spouses sense of security that the relationship will be long-lasting. 49. Although these conclusions are derived from studies of heterosexual couples, it is
reasonable to infer that same-sex couples will generally benefit from marriage as do their heterosexual counterparts given the many well-established similarities in the nature and quality
16
of same-sex and heterosexual couples relationships. 36 And, indeed, this was the finding of a recent study of a representative sample of California adults -- gay people who were legally married had significantly better psychological well-being than their peers who were not in a legally recognized relationship. 37 50. As it does for many different-sex couples, marriage for many same-sex couples
creates bonds between the spouses and a social network of in-laws, friends, and others who can provide emotional support and tangible assistance. As with different-sex couples, marriage binds same-sex couples together in a well-understood and highly valued social union and legal contract. 51. Marriage embodies many cultural values and expectations, often reflected in
marriage vows by which spouses pledge to love and care for each other, to be faithful to each other, and to stay together through good times and bad until separated by death. These cultural expectations provide a framework that individuals can draw upon to understand and build a relationship together. These cultural expectations also provide guidelines that relatives and society can draw on. 52. Data from same-sex spouses in Massachusetts offer additional insights on the
experience of married lesbian and gay American couples. 38 Most lesbians and gay men reported that marriage had improved their social relationships: 62% said their family was more accepting of their partner and 41% said their family was more accepting of their sexual orientation. In addition, 69% felt more accepted in their community. Most respondents said that their parents reacted positively to their marriage (82%) as did their siblings (91%). Lesbians and gay men were also asked about ways that marriage had improved their relationship. A majority (72%) agreed that they felt more committed to their partner. Many reported that they now worry less about legal problems (48%) and nearly a third said that one of the spouses receives health
36 37
Kurdek, 2004, 2005; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007. Wight, LeBlanc & Badgett, 2013. 38 Ramos, Goldberg & Badgett, 2009. 17
benefits from an employer as a result of marriage. Other benefits mentioned included feeling more accepted by society (38%) and feeling more financially stable (14%). One in four of the same-sex couples surveyed were raising children, and 93% of these respondents agreed that their children were happier or better off as a result of their marriage; 2% disagreed, and 4% were unsure. 53. Leading organizations of mental health professionals recognize the benefits of
marriage for same-sex couples and the harm created by denying access to civil marriage to samesex couples. As one example, in 2005 the American Psychiatric Association, the leading organization representing physicians in the field of mental health, adopted a policy statement on this issue. Their resolution stated: In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities. 39 Further, in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage, 40 the American Psychological Association resolved [t]hat APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges. V. Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Reflects and Perpetuates Stigma Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Same-Sex Couples 54. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are the targets of prejudice and
discrimination in the United States. 41 National opinion surveys document that many Americans have negative attitudes toward this group of people and toward marriage for same-sex couples. Research has also documented that heterosexuals often view same-sex couples more negatively than heterosexual couples. 42 Gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals experience discrimination at work and in their communities, 43 and most states provide no legal protection against
39 40 41 42 43
American Psychiatric Association, 2005. American Psychological Association, 2004. Herek, 2009a. Testa, Kinder & Ironson, 1987. Herek, 2009b. 18
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Significant numbers of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are targets of harassment and violence. 44 These facts demonstrate that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals experience pervasive social stigma. 55. Social stigma refers to severe social disapproval of a class of people perceived as
being different, deviant, or in violation of cultural norms. 45 In American society today, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals continue to be a highly stigmatized minority group. Many heterosexuals, who are the dominant group in society, perceive gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and same-sex couples, as fundamentally different, hold negative stereotypes about their characteristics, and view discrimination against them as acceptable. Social stigma is reflected both in the acts of individuals and in the institutions of society, including its laws, that legitimate and perpetuate the second-class status of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and same-sex couples. 56. By prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, Pennsylvania law both reflects
and perpetuates stigma against lesbians, gay men, and same-sex couples. Pennsylvania law devalues and delegitimizes the relationships of same-sex couples. By giving heterosexuals exclusive access to the benefits associated with the institution of marriage, Pennsylvania law perpetuates power differentials between heterosexual citizens and non-heterosexual citizens. Pennsylvania law signals that in the eyes of the state, the committed relationships of same-sex couples are inferior to different-sex relationships and that partners in same-sex relationships are less deserving of social recognition and government protection. The stigma perpetuated by Pennsylvania law affects not only individuals in committed relationships with a person of the same sex, but all gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals as a group. VI. There Is No Evidence That Heterosexual Relationships Would Be Harmed If Same-Sex Couples Were Permitted To Marry 57. For many decades, social scientists have studied and analyzed the factors that
contribute to rates of divorce. 46 There is a scientific consensus about the key factors that may be
44 45 46
Herek, 2009b. Herek, 2009a. Cherlin, 2009; Coontz, 2007; Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; Teachman, 2002. 19
responsible. First, increasing employment opportunities for women have led to a dramatic increase in the percentage of married women in the workforce. Paid employment gives wives greater economic independence from their husbands, which in turn makes it more feasible to end an unhappy marriage. Second, since the 1970s, economic opportunities for men without college education have diminished, adding financial stress to the lives of some married couples. Third, there have also been important changes in public attitudes. Public acceptance of divorce has increased, as has the social acceptability of unmarried cohabitation. Some scholars also suggest that a growing emphasis on individualism and personal fulfillment has eroded an earlier emphasis on the importance of obligation and commitment in marriage. Fourth, state no-fault divorce laws have made it easier for spouses to end their relationships. 58. In addition, research has identified several demographic characteristics that are
associated with an increased likelihood of divorce. 47 First, age at marriage matters: people who marry as teenagers are more likely to divorce than those who are in their 20s or older. Second, low income and education are associated with greater rates of divorce. Third, so too is race or ethnicity; African Americans have significantly higher rates of marital separation, Asian Americans have lower rates, and other groups fall in between. Fourth, individuals whose parents divorced while they were growing up are at greater risk of divorce. Although a correlation exists, these demographic characteristics do not necessarily cause relationships to end. When spouses are similar to each other with regard to such characteristics as religion and age, the risk of divorce is lower. 59. None of these factors uniquely correlates with same-sex couples or with allowing
them to marry. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would not alter state marriage laws,
Amato, 1996; Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; Heaton, 2002; Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993; Raley & Sweeney, 2007. For example, data from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions National Survey of Family Growth 1995 survey (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002) show that the probability of divorce among heterosexual couples after 10 years of marriage was 23% for those with more than $50,000 of household income compared to 53% for those whose household income was less than $25,000. The 10-year divorce rate also varied significantly by race, e.g., 20% for Asians and 47% for African Americans. 20
47
economic opportunities for married heterosexual women or men, public attitudes toward divorce or cohabitation, or personal values of individualism or commitment. Nor would it affect the age at which heterosexuals decide to marry, their personal history of parental divorce, their choice of a similar or dissimilar partner, or their income or education levels. Indeed, the fact that lesbians and gay men, a class of citizens denied legal marriage, are seeking to obtain marriage rights could be seen as beneficial to the vitality of the institution of marriage, because it broadens the scope of support for the value of marriage as a central social institution in American society. 60. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would not affect the quality or stability of
different-sex relationships. The quality of a heterosexual couples marriage depends on such factors as the spouses personalities, their communication styles and ways of handling conflict with each other, the stress a couple experiences, and the social support and resources available to the couple. None of these factors is altered if a same-sex couple living down the block gets married. In addition, the stability of marriages between different-sex couples depends on barriers to divorce, including investments the spouses have made in each other and their relationship, their moral and personal convictions about marriage, the options they see available outside of marriage, and the many legal, financial, and social obligations that come with a marriage license. These factors are not influenced by the marital status of other couples. In short, there is no scientific basis for the proposition that allowing same-sex couples to marry would affect the underlying processes that foster stability in different-sex marriages. 61. In response to an effort to ban marriage for same-sex couples, the Executive
Board of the American Anthropological Association, the worlds largest organization of anthropologists, issued the following statement: The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family
21
types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. 48 62. Empirical evidence demonstrates that legalizing marriage for same-sex couples
does not affect either marriage or divorce rates for different-sex couples. An examination of statistical data from Massachusetts, where marriage for same-sex couples became available in 2004, indicates that marriage of same-sex couples has not led to a decline in marriage nor to an increase in divorce. In the four years prior to when same-sex couples were permitted to marry (2000-2003), the average marriage rate was 5.9 marriages per 1,000 total population in the state. In the eight years after same-sex couples were permitted to marry (2004-2011), the average marriage rate was also 5.9. In the four years prior to when same-sex couples were permitted to marry (2000-2003), the average divorce rate was 2.5. In the eight years after same-sex couples were permitted to marry (2004-2011), the divorce rate averaged 2.3. 49 Similarly, a recent study that examined the rates of different-sex marriage in each state and the District of Columbia from 1988 to 2009 found that the availability of marriage for same-sex couples did not affect different-sex couples rates of marrying. 50 63. The finding that the availability of marriage for same-sex couples lacks a
correlation with the rates of marriage or divorce among different-sex couples is entirely consistent with our scientific knowledge about why people choose to marry and the factors associated with divorce. 64. In short, empirical data demonstrate that marriage by same-sex couples does not
harm marriage for different-sex couples. Marriage by same-sex couples does not deter differentsex couples from marrying nor pose a threat to the stability of marriage for different-sex couples.
48 49
American Anthropological Association, 2004. Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011, CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System. Available at:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf . Divorce rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011, CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/divorce_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf. 50 Dinno & Whitney, 2013. 22
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me foregoing statements made by me are willfully false Executed on February ~D, 2014. Y
are true. I am aware that if any ofthe
, I am subject to punishment.
Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D.
23
Exhibit A
January 2014
Letitia Anne Peplau

Distinguished Research Professor Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 Telephone: (310) 825-1187 FAX: (310) 206-5895 Email: lapeplau@ucla.edu Education B.A. in Honors Psychology, Brown University, 1968 (Summa cum laude) Ph.D. in Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1973 Academic Positions at UCLA 1973-2010 2010 2011 1983-1988 1985-1986 1988-1990 1994-1995 1999-2011 2005-2011 2004-present Professor of Psychology Distinguished Professor of Psychology Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology Director, Graduate Program in Social Psychology Associate Director, Center for the Study of Women Acting Co-Director, Center for the Study of Women Director, Graduate Program in Social Psychology Faculty Affiliate, UCLA Center for the Study of Women Director, NSF IGERT Interdisciplinary Relationship Science Program, UCLA Vice Chair for Graduate Studies, UCLA Psychology Department
Honors and Professional Societies Danforth Graduate Fellowship, 1968-1973 National Science Foundation Pre-doctoral Fellowship, 1968-1970 Phi Beta Kappa Sigma Xi American Psychological Association (elected fellow in Divisions 8, 9, 35 and 44) Association for Psychological Science (fellow) American Sociological Association Society for Experimental Social Psychology Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues International Academy of Sex Research Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Outstanding Achievement Award, Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns, APA, 1986 President, International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, 1994-1996 Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, 1997 Monette/Horwitz Trust Award for Research on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Studies, 2000. Outstanding Faculty Award, UCLA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Campus Center, June 2001. Distinguished Publication Award 2001, Association for Women in Psychology Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, Division 44, APA, 2002
Invited Master Lecture at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, 2002. Elected to membership in the International Academy of Sex Research, 2003 Distinguished Teaching Award, UCLA Psychology Department, 2003 Award for Distinguished Faculty Service, Womens Studies Program, UCLA, 2005 Mentoring Award, International Association for Relationship Research, 2006 Distinguished Elder Award, APA National Multicultural Summit and Conference, 2007 Heritage Award for Research, APA Division 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women), 2007 Awarded the Evelyn Hooker Award for Distinguished Contribution by an Ally, APA Division 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues), 2008 Editorial Activities Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Social Issues, 1974-1977 Member, Editorial Board, Social Psychology Quarterly, 1977-1979 Consulting Editor, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1978-1980 Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Homosexuality, 1980-1985 Member, Editorial Board, SIGNS: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1981-1989 Member, Advisory Board, Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 1985-1987 Consulting Editor, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985-1989 Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1987-1989 Member, Advisory Board, Advances in Personal Relationships, l986-1992 Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Social Issues, 1992-1995 Member, Advisory Board, Columbia University Press Series on Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1993-2000 Associate Editor, SIGNS: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2000-2005 Member, Editorial Board, Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology, APA Books, 2001-2009 Member, Editorial Board, Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 2003-2011 Member, International Advisory Board, Ibadan Journal of Social Sciences, 2004-2010 Selected Recent Professional Activities Member, Editorial Board, Psychology and Sexuality Member, Scientific Review Panel for the Placek Research Award Program, American Psychological Foundation, 1995-2000 Member, Committee on Women in Psychology Network (representative from Division 8), 1998-present Member, Working Group on Same-Sex Families, American Psychological Association, April 2004. Chair, Fellows Selection Committee, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (Div. 9 of APA), 2004-2005. Member, Fellows Selection Committee, Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues (Div. 44 of APA), 2006-2008. Books and Edited Volumes Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social psychology, 12th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2003). Social psychology, 11th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Published into Russian in 2004. Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (Eds.) (2000). Women's sexualities: Perspectives on sexual orientation and gender. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (whole number 2). This volume was selected for the 2001 Distinguished Publication Award of the Association for Women in Psychology. Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2000). Social psychology, 10th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Peplau, L. A., DeBro, S. C., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. (Eds.) (1999). Gender, culture and ethnicity. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (1997). Social psychology, 9th Ed. Upper Saddle R iver, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Peplau, L. A. & Taylor, S. E. (Eds.) (1997). Sociocultural perspectives in social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (1994). Social psychology, 8th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). Psychology, 1st Ed. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Sears, D. O., Peplau, L. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social psychology, 7th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Peplau, L. A., Sears, D. O., Taylor, S. E. , & Freedman, J. L. (Eds.) (1988). Readings in social psychology: Classic and contemporary contributions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sears, D. O., Peplau, L. A., Freedman, J. L., & Taylor, S. E. (1988). Social psychology, 6th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sears, D. O., Freedman, J. L., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Social psychology, 5th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Peplau, L.A., & Goldston, S. E. (Eds.) (1984). Preventing the harmful consequences of severe and persistent loneliness. DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 84-1312. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (Monograph). Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman. Reprinted (2002) by Percheron Press. Peplau, L. A., & Jones, R. (Issue Editors) (1982). Homosexual couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 8 (whole number 2).
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.) (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Published in Japanese translation in 1988 and in Russian in 1989. Peplau, L. A., & Hammen, C. L. (Eds.) (1977). Sexual behavior: Social psychological issues. Journal of Social Issues, 33, (whole number 2). Articles and Book Chapters Lavner, J., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (in press). Parent adjustment over time in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parent families adopting from foster care. Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Fingerhut, A.W. & Peplau, L. A. (2013). Same-sex romantic relationships. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. DAugelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 165-178). New York: Oxford University Press. Preciado, M. A., Johnson, K. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). The impact of cues of stigma and support on self-perceived sexual orientation among heterosexually identified men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.006 Lavner, J., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 465472. Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 113-127. Preciado, M. A. & Peplau, L. A. (2011). Self-perception of same-sex sexuality among heterosexual women: Association with personal need for structure. Self and Identity, doi:10.1080/15298868.2010.51572. Ghavami, N., Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., Grant, S. K., & Wittig, M. A. (2011). Testing a model of minority identity achievement, identity affirmation and psychological well-being among ethnic minority and sexual minority individuals. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 79-88. Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2010). Identity, minority stress and psychological well-being among gay men and lesbians. Psychology and Sexuality, 1(2), 101-114. Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma management and well-being: The role of social support, cognitive processing, and suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 867-879. Conley, T. D., & Peplau, L. A. (2009). Gender and perceptions of romantic partners sexual risk. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 794-802. Conley, T. D., Roesch, S. C., Peplau, L. A., & Gold, M. S. (2009). Testing the positive illusions model of relationship satisfaction among gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1417-1431.
Peplau, L. A., Frederick, D. A., Yee, C., Maisel, N., Lever, J. & Ghavami, N. (2009). Body image satisfaction among heterosexual, gay and lesbian adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 713725. Peplau, L. A., & Ghavami, N. (2009). The relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.). The encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Frederick, D., Lever, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2008). The Barbie mystique: Satisfaction with breast size and shape across the lifespan. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 200-211. Peplau, L. A. & Huppin, M. (2008). Masculinity, femininity and the development of sexual orientation in women. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 12(1/2), 147-167. Also published as a chapter in R. Mathy & J. Drescher (Ed.) Childhood gender nonconformity and the development of adult homosexuality (pp 147-167). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58. 10.1-10.20. Frederick, D. A., Buchanan, G. M., Sadeghi-Azar, L., Peplau, L. A., Haselton, M. G., Berezovskaya, A., & Lipinski, R. E. (2007). Desiring the muscular ideal: Mens body satisfaction in the United States, Ukraine, and Ghana. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 8, 103-117. Frederick, D., Lever, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2007). Interest in cosmetic surgery and body image: Views of men and women across the life span. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 120, 14071415. Fingerhut, A. W., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The impact of social roles on stereotypes of gay men. Sex Roles, 55, 273-278. Garnets, L., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Sexuality in the lives of adult lesbian and bisexual women. In D. C. Kimmel, T. Rose, & S. David (Eds.) Research and clinical perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender aging, pp. 70-90. New York: Columbia University Press. Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Disclosure patterns within the social networks of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(2), 101-120. Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does size matter? Mens and womens views on penis size across the life span. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(3), 129-143. Frederick, D. A., Peplau, L. A., & Lever, J. (2006). The swimsuit issue: Correlates of body image in a sample of 52, 677 heterosexual adults. Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 3, 413-419. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). His and her relationships: A review of the empirical evidence. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 884-904). New York: Cambridge University Press. Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59(8), 1077-1100.
Impett, E. A., Gable, S., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327-344. Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12, 465-482. This paper received Distinguished Publication award from the International Association for Relationships Research, July 20, 2008. Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., & Ghavami, N. (2005). A dual-identity framework for understanding lesbian experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 129-139. Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2005) Identity support, identity devaluation and well-being among lesbians. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 140-145. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. (2004). The paradox of the lesbian worker. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 719-735. Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A., & Beals, K. P. (2004). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 350-369). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Peplau, L. A. & Beals, K. P. (2004). The family lives of lesbians and gay men. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 233-248). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 37-40. Reprinted in J. B. Ruscher & E. Y. Hammer (Eds.) (2004). Current directions in social Psychology (pp. 76-82). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87-100. This paper received the 2004 Student Research Award from the Society for Sex Therapy and Research. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 360-370. Beals, K., Impett, E., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Lesbians in love: Why some relationships endure and others end. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 53-64. Garnets, L. D., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). A new paradigm for womens sexual orientation: Implications for therapy. Women and Therapy, 24, 111-122. Reprinted in E. Kaschak & L. Tiefer (Eds.) (2002). A new view of womens sexual problems (pp. 111-122.) Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Impett, E. A., Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2001-02). Testing the investment model of relationship commitment and stability in a longitudinal study of married couples. Current Psychology, 20(4), 312-326.
Reprinted in N. J. Pallone (Ed.) (2003), Love, romance, and sexual interaction: Research perspectives from Current Psychology (pp. 163-181). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Peplau, L. A., & Beals, K. P. (2001). Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in relationships. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender (pp. 657-666). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2001). Social involvement, disclosure of sexual orientation, and the quality of lesbian relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 25, 10-19. Peplau, L. A. (2001). Rethinking womens sexual orientation: An interdisciplinary, relationshipfocused approach. Personal Relationships, 8, 1-19. Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding womens sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 329-350. Garnets, L. D., & Peplau, L. A. (2000). Understanding womens sexualities and sexual orientations: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 181-192. Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Veniegas, R. C., Taylor, P. L., & Peplau, L. A. (1999). A guide to resources about gender, culture and ethnicity. In L. A. Peplau, S. C. DeBro, R. C. Veniegas, & P. Taylor (Eds.) Gender, culture and ethnicity (pp 1-13). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Peplau, L. A., Veniegas, R. C., Taylor, P. L., & DeBro, S. C. (1999). Sociocultural perspectives on the lives of women and men. In L. A. Peplau, S. C. DeBro, R. C. Veniegas, & P. Taylor (Eds.) Gender, culture and ethnicity (pp 23-37). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Peplau, L. A., Spalding, L. R., Conley, T. D., & Veniegas, R. C. (1999). The development of sexual orientation in women. Annual Review of Sex Research, Vol 10, 70-99. Vincent, P. C., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1998). A longitudinal application of the theory of reasoned action to women's career behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 761-778. Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (1998). Premarital predictors of relationship outcomes: A 15-year followup of the Boston Couples Study. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 237-278). New York: Cambridge University Press. Peplau, L. A., Garnets, L.D., Spalding, L. R., Conley, T. D., & Veniegas, R. C. (1998). A critique of Bems Exotic Becomes Erotic theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 105(2), 387-394. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1998). Loneliness. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.) Encyclopedia of mental health, Vol 2 (pp. 571-581). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals' stereotypes of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 611-625.
Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 279-297. This article was awarded the Graduate Student Research Prize by APA Division 35 and the Association for Women in Psychology in 1997. Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). A guide to sociocultural resources in social psychology. In L. A. Peplau & S. E. Taylor (Eds.), Sociocultural perspectives in social psychology (pp. xivxx). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (1997). A national survey of the intimate relationships of African-American lesbians and gay men: A look at commitment, satisfaction, sexual behavior and HIV disease. In B. Greene (Ed.) Ethnic and cultural diversity among lesbians and gay men (pp 11-38). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Bui, K. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the Rusbult model of relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1244-1257. Peplau, L. A., Veniegas, R. C., & Campbell, S. M. (1996). Gay and lesbian relationships. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 250-273). New York: Harcourt Brace. Wayment, H. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1995). Social support and well-being among lesbian and heterosexual women: A structural modeling approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1189-1199. Peplau, L. A. (1994). Men and women in love. In D. L. Sollie & L. S. Leslie (Eds.), Gender, families, and close relationships: Feminist research journeys (pp. 19-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. De Bro, S. C., Campbell, S. M., & Peplau, L. A. (1994). Influencing a partner to use a condom: A college student perspective. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 165-182. Peplau, L. A., Hill, C. T., & Rubin, Z. (1993). Sex-role attitudes in dating and marriage: A 15year followup of the Boston Couples Study. Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 31-52. Campbell, S. M., Peplau, L. A., & De Bro, S. C. (1992). Women, men, and condoms: Attitudes and experiences of heterosexual college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(3), 273288. Garnets, L., Hancock, K. A., Cochran, S. D., Goodchilds, J., & Peplau, L. A. (1991). Issues in psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men: A survey of psychologists. American Psychologist, 46(2), 964-972. Reprinted in D. R. Atkinson & G. Hackett (Eds.) (1998). Counseling diverse populations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, S. M., Dunkel-Schetter, C. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1991). Perceived control and adjustment to infertility among women undergoing in vitro fertilization. In A. L. Stanton & C. A. Dunkel-Schetter (Eds.), Psychological adjustment to infertility (pp. 133-156). New York: Plenum.
Cochran, S. D., & Peplau, L. A. (1991). Sexual risk reduction behaviors among young heterosexual adults. Social Science and Medicine, 33(1), 25-36. Peplau, L. A. (1991). Lesbian and gay relationships. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research findings for public policy (pp. 177-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Reprinted in L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.) (1993). Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences (pp. 395-419). New York: Columbia University Press. Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1990). A relationship perspective on homosexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 321-349). New York: Oxford University Press. Peplau, L. A., & Conrad, E. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 381-402. Peplau, L. A., & Campbell, S. M. (1989). Power in dating and marriage. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective, 4th Ed. (pp. 121-137). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Reprinted in S. J. Ferguson (Ed.), (2001). Shifting the center: Understanding contemporary families, 2nd Ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, pp. 142-152. Peplau, L. A. (1988). Loneliness: New directions in research. Participate in the challenge of mental health and psychiatric nursing in 1988 (pp. 127-142). [Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Psychiatric Nursing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.] Peplau, L. A. (1988). Reading research reports in social psychology. In L. A. Peplau, D. O. Sears, S. E. Taylor, & J. L. Freedman (Eds.), Readings in social psychology: Classic and contemporary contributions, 2nd Ed. (pp.1-5). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Peplau, L. A. (1987). Loneliness and the college student. In I. Z. Rubin & E. McNeil. The psychology of being human, 4th Ed. (pp. 475-479). New York: Harper & Row. Cochran, S. D., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Value orientations in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 477-488. Blasband, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Sexual exclusivity versus openness in gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14(5), 395-412. Peplau, L. A., & Gordon, S. L. (1985). Women and men in love: Gender differences in close heterosexual relationships. In V. E. O'Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Wallston Eds.), Women, gender and social psychology (pp. 257-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reprinted in T. Roberts (Ed.) (1997). The Lanahan readings in the psychology of women (pp. 246-268). Baltimore, MD: Lanahan Publishers. Peplau, L. A. (1985). Loneliness research: Basic concepts and findings. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and application (pp. 270-286). Boston: Martinus Nijhof. Peplau, L. A. (1985). Loneliness. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social science encyclopedia (p. 474). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). Loneliness research: A survey of empirical findings. In L. A. Peplau & S. E. Goldston (Eds.), Preventing the harmful consequences of severe and persistent loneliness (pp. 13-46). DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 84-1312. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). The balance of power in lesbian relationships. Sex Roles, 10, 587-600. Reprinted in W. R. Dynes & S. Donaldson (Eds.) (1992), Studies in homosexuality, Vol VII: Lesbianism (pp. 27-39). New York: Garland Publishing. Hill, C. T., Peplau, L. A., & Rubin, Z.(1983). Contraceptives use by college dating couples. Population and Environment: Behavioral and Social Issues, 6(1), 60-69. Peplau, L. A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H. H. Kelley, et al., Close relationships (pp. 220-264). New York: Freeman. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. (1983). Analyzing close relationships. In H. H. Kelley, et al., Close relationships (pp. 20-64). New York: Freeman. Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In H. H. Kelley, et al., Close relationships (pp. 1-19). New York: Freeman. Peplau, L. A., & Gordon, S. L. (1983). The intimate relationships of lesbians and gay men. In E. R. Allgeier & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), The changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior (pp. 226-244). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Reprinted in J. N. Edwards & D. H. Demo (Eds.) (1991). Marriage and family in transition (pp 479-496.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rook, K. S., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Perspectives on helping the lonely. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness (pp. 351-378). New York: Wiley. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Theoretical approaches to loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness (pp. 123-134). New York: Wiley. Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness (pp. 1-18). New York: Wiley. Peplau, L. A., Padesky, C., & Hamilton, M. (1982). Satisfaction in lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(2), 23-35. Peplau, L. A., Miceli, M., & Morasch, B. (1982). Loneliness and self evaluation. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness (pp. 135-151). New York: Wiley. Peplau, L. A., Bikson, T. K., Rook, K. S., & Goodchilds, J. D. (1982). Being old and living alone. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness (pp. 327-347). New York: Wiley. Peplau, L. A., & Amaro, H. (1982). Understanding lesbian relationships. In W. Paul & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Social, psychological and biological issues (pp. 233-248). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10
Reprinted in T. Roberts (Ed.) (1997). The Lanahan readings in the psychology of women (pp. 269-280). Baltimore, MD: Lanahan Publishers. Peplau, L. A. (1982). Research on homosexual couples: An overview. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(2), 3-8. Reprinted in J. P. DeCecco (Ed.) (1988). Gay relationships (pp. 33-40). New York: Harrington Park Press. Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A., & Weeks, D. G. (1982). Perceived dimensions of attributions for loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 929-936. Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8(7), 721-732. Berg, J., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Loneliness: The relationship of self-disclosure and androgyny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(4), 624-630. Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles, 7(8), 821-835. Risman, B. J., Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Living together in college: Implications for courtship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 77-83. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships in disorder (pp. 31-56). London: Academic Press. Reprinted in B. Earn & S. Towson (Eds.) (1986). Readings in social psychology (pp. l37l55). Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press Ltd. Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1981). Value orientations in the intimate relationships of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(3), 1-19. Reprinted in J. P. DeCecco (Ed.) (1988). Gay relationships (pp. 195-216). New York: Harrington Park Press. Peplau, L. A. (1981, March). What homosexuals want in relationships. Psychology Today, pp. 28-34, 37-38. Peplau, L. A. (1981). Interpersonal attraction. In D. Sherrod (Ed.), Social psychology, 2nd Ed. (pp. 195-229). New York: Random House. Hill, C. T., Peplau, L. A., & Rubin, Z. (1981). Differing perceptions in dating couples: Sex roles vs. alternative explanations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(3), 418-434. Weeks, D. G., Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A., & Bragg, M. E. (1980). The relation between loneliness and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1238-1244. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472-480.
11
Rubin, Z., Hill, C. T., Peplau, L. A., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1980). Self-disclosure in dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 305317. Peplau, L. A. (1980). Sexual aspects of lesbian relationships. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 14(3), 107. Peplau, L. A. (1980). Lesbian mothers. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 14(3), 136-137. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L.A. (1981). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 618-628. Rubenstein, C., Shaver, P., & Peplau, L. A. (1979, February). Loneliness. Human Nature, pp. 5865. Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., & Heim, M. (1979). The experience of loneliness. In I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, & J. S. Carroll (Eds.), New approaches to social problems: Applications of attribution theory (pp. 53-78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1979). Blueprint for a social psychological theory of loneliness. In M. Cook & G. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction (pp. 99-108). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Peplau, L. A. (1979). Power in dating relationships. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective, 2nd Ed. (pp. 106-121). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Reprinted (1984) in the 3rd Edition. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Willard, S. G. (1979). The volunteer couple: Sex differences, couple commitment and participation in research on interpersonal relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(4), 415-420. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290-294. Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., & Heim, M. (1978). Loneliness: A bibliography of research and theory. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 38. (Ms. No. 1682.) Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S., Rook, K., & Padesky, C. (1978). Loving women: Attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 34(3), 7-27. This article was awarded the Evelyn C. Hooker research award by the national Gay Academics Union, November 24, 1979. Reprinted in L. Richardson & V. A. Taylor (Eds.) (1983) Feminist frontiers: Rethinking sex, gender & society (pp. 408-419). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. (1978). Loneliness: A cognitive analysis. Essence, 2(4), 207220. (This is a Canadian gerontology journal that devoted a special issue to loneliness.) Hammen, C. L., & Peplau, L. A. (1978). Brief encounters: Impact of gender, sex-role attitudes, and partner's gender on interaction and cognition. Sex Roles, 4(1), 75-90.
12
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(2), 86-109. Peplau, L. A., & Hammen, C. L. (1977). Social psychological issues in sexual behavior: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 33(2), 1-6. Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1976). The sexual balance of power. Psychology Today, November, pp. 142, 145, 147, 151. Reprinted in C. Gordon & G. Johnson (Eds.) (1976), Readings in human sexuality: Contemporary perspectives, 2nd Ed. New York: Harper & Row. Reprinted in Annual Editions (1980), Readings in personal growth and adjustment 80/81. Guilford, CT: Dushkin. Peplau, L. A. (1976). Fear of success in dating couples. Sex Roles, 2, 249-258. Peplau, L. A. (1976). Impact of fear of success and sex-role attitudes on women's competitive achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 561-568. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 147-168. Reprinted in A. Skolnick & J. Skolnick (Eds.) (1977), Family in transition, 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. Reprinted in G. Levinger & O. C. Moles (Eds.) (1979), Divorce and separation: A survey of causes and consequences. New York: Basic Books. Reprinted in Peplau, L. A., Sears, D. O., Taylor, S. E., & Freedman, J. L. (Eds.) (1988), Readings in social psychology: Classic and contemporary contributions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65-90. Reprinted (1977) in Reflections, XII(1), 1-26. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another's lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29(4), 73-94. Peplau, L. A. (1972). Intergroup behavior. In Psychology today: An introduction (pp. 545-563). Del Mar, CA: CRM Books. Peplau, L. A. (1972). Patterns of social behavior: The case of sex roles. In Psychology today: An introduction (pp. 487-500). Del Mar, CA: CRM Books. Peplau, L. A. (1967). Infantile autism. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 5(3), 112-122. Book Reviews Peplau, L.A. (1996). The wit and wisdom of a feminist sexologist. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 173-174. (Review of "Sex is not a natural act and other essays")
13
Peplau, L. A. (1994). Is it a relationship if we're not having sex? Contemporary Boston Marriages. Journal of Sex Research, 31(3), 243-245. (Review of "Boston Marriages: Romantic but Asexual Relationships among Contemporary Lesbians") Peplau, L. A. (1988). Review of "In search of parenthood: Coping with infertility and high-tech conception." Contemporary Psychology, 33(10), 919. Peplau, L. A. (1982). Review of "The Anatomy of Loneliness" and "In Search of Intimacy." Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 20(11), 38-39. Peplau, L. A., & Gutek, B. (1979). Textbooks on the psychology of women: A review essay. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4(1), 129-136. Peplau, L. A. (1979). Review of "Friends and Lovers." American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1513-1514. Peplau, L. A. (1977). Review of "The Hite Report" and "Sex and Personality." Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2(1), 86-88. Peplau, L. A. (1977). An Introduction to Women's Studies. Contemporary Psychology, 22(12), 933-934. (Review of "Beyond Intellectual Sexism") Peplau, L. A. (1977). Review of "Women and Achievement." Sex Roles, 3(6), 600-602. Peplau, L. A. (1975). Assessing sexual innovation in marriage. Contemporary Psychology, 20(12), 941-942. (Review of "Beyond Monogamy")
Selected Recent Paper Presentations, Invited Addresses and Posters Ghavami, N., Peplau, L. A., Sears, D. & Zawatsky, J. (January, 2012). Diagnosticity of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Diego, CA. Peplau, L. A. (August, 2010). Marriage equality for same-sex couples: Perspectives from relationship research in the United States. Invited Presidential Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Diego, CA. Peplau, L. A. (August, 2010). Same-sex couples: Research, law and policy. Presented at the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Psychology Summer Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (July, 2008). Is love blind? Attractiveness ratings by self, partner, and others, and the outcome of dating relationships 25 years later. Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany. Fingerhut, A. D., deRoulhac, C., Natale, C., & Peplau, L. A. (2008, February). Heterosexuals attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: Predictors of positive and negative attitudes. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, NM. Frederick, D.A., & Peplau, L.A. (2007, January). The UCLA Body Matrices II: Computer-
14
generated images of men and women varying in body fat and muscularity/breast size to assess body satisfaction and preferences. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN. Mulrenan, T., Frederick, D.A., Sadeghi-Azar, L., Ha, J., Peplau, L.A., & Haselton, M.G. (2006, January). The UCLA Body Matrices as measures of body image and body type preferences. Poster presented at the annual meting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, Palm Springs, CA. Laird, K., Mulrenan, T., Frederick, D.A., Grigorian, K., Peplau, L.A., & Haselton, M.G. (2006, January). Sex differences in preferences for dating a taller romantic partner. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, Palm Springs, CA. Sadeghi-Azar, L., Frederick, D.A., Mulrenan, T., Peplau, A., Haselton, M.G., & Fessler, D.M.T. (2006, January). Representations of the ideal male and female bodies in popular media. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, Palm Springs, CA. Fingerhut, A. W., & Peplau, L. A. (2006, January). Symposium: Integrating social identity perspectives with research on the experiences of lesbians and gay men. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social and Personality Psychology, Palm Springs, CA. Frederick, D.A., Haselton, M., Peplau, L.A., Mansourian, A., & Allameh, S. (2005, January). Sex differences in desires for sexual variety. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, New Orleans, LA. Ghavami, N., Fingerhut, W., & Peplau, L. A. (2005, January). A dual-identity approach to understanding stress experiences of lesbians and gay men. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social and Personality Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Peplau, L.A., Frederick, D.A., Lever, J., Burklund, L., & Madrid, H. (2005, January). Correlates of body image dissatisfaction among 52,171 online respondents. Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, New Orleans, LA. Sadeghi-Azar, L., Frederick, D.A., Allameh, S., Lever, J., & Peplau, L.A. (2005). Attitudes toward cosmetic surgery and the body across the lifespan. American Psychological Society Convention, Los Angeles, CA. Peplau, L.A., Frederick, D.A., Lever, J., Kroskrity, E. (2005). Body image satisfaction among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adults. American Psychological Society Convention, Los Angeles, CA. Frederick, D.A., Lever, J., Peplau, L.A., Casey, J., & Berezovskaya, A. (2005). Does size matter? Attitudes toward breast size and shape among heterosexual adults. American Psychological Society Convention, Los Angeles, CA. Fingerhut. A.W., Peplau, L.A., & Ghavami, N. (2005, February). Gay and Lesbian Psychological Health: The Role of Identity. Poster presented at the National Multicultural Conference and Summit, Los Angeles, CA. Fingerhut, A. W., & Peplau, L. A. (2005, January). Stereotypes of women in the workforce: The role of sexual orientation and parental status. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
15
Peplau, L. A., Lever, J., Frederick, D., Burklund, L., & Madrid, H. (2005, January). Correlates of body image dissatisfaction among 52,171 online respondents. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social and Personality Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Peplau, L. A. (2004, November 12). New directions in research on womens sexual orientation. Invited colloquium, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Peplau, L. A. (2004, September 29). The development of sexual orientation in women: A socialpsychological analysis. Invited colloquium, Psychology and Womens Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A., & Ghavami, N. (2004, July). Individual differences in gay-related stress: A dual-identity perspective. Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (July, 2003). Sources of self-esteem: A 25-year study. Paper presented at the 29th Inter-American Congress of Psychology. Peplau, L. A., & Impett, E. A. (2003, April 11). Sexual compliance: Why partners make "sexual sacrifices." Invited presentation, Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Western Region Annual Conference, San Jose, CA. Peplau, L. A. (April 11, 2003). Gender differences in sex and relationships. Invited address, Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Western Region Annual Conference, San Jose, CA. Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (March 28, 2003). Romantic beliefs and marital outcomes: A 25-year study. Paper presented at the Southeast Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Peplau, L. A. (August, 2002). Venus and Mars in the lab: New research on gender and sexuality. Invited Master Lecture, annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (July, 2001). Life satisfaction: A 25-year follow-up of the Boston Couples Study. Presented at the VIIth European Congress of Psychology, London, England. Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (May, 2001). A new paradigm for understanding womens sexual orientation. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Maui, Hawaii.
16
Exhibit B
Bibliography Amato, P. R (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 628-640. American Anthropological Association Statement on Marriage and the Family (Adopted by the Executive Board of the AAA on February 26, 2004). Retrieved from: http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-theFamily.cfm. American Psychiatric Association (1974). Position statement on homosexuality and civil rights. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(4), p. 497 (official actions). American Psychiatric Association. (2005, July). Support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage. Retrieved from: http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Advocacy%20and%20Newsroom/Position%2 0Statements/ps2005_SameSexMarriage.pdf. American Psychological Association. (2004). Sexual orientation and marriage: Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf. Published in Paige, R. U. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist, 60(5), p. 494. American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf. Bozett, F. W. (1982). Heterogenous couples in heterosexual marriages: Gay men and straight women. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8(1), 81-89. Balsam, K., Rothblum, E., & Solomon, S. (2008). Three-year follow up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 44 (1), 102-116. Bramlett, M., & Mosher, W. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23(22). Carpenter, C. S., & Gates, G. J. (2008). Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California. Demography, 45, 573-590. Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011, March 3). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, No. 36. U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651. Coontz, S. (2007). The origins of modern divorce. Family Process, 46, 7-16. Dinno, A. & Whitney, C. (2013). Same sex marriage and the perceived assault on opposite
sex marriage. PLOS ONE 8 (6): e65730. Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2010. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/marriage_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf. Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Divorce rates by state: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2010. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf. Gove, W. R., Style, C. B., & Hughes, M. (1990). The effect of marriage on the well-being of adults: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 4-35. Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3), 392-409. Herek, G. M. (2000). Homosexuality. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology Vol. 4 (pp. 149-153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Herek, G. M. (2009a). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In D.A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay and bisexual identities: The 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 65-111). New York: Springer. Herek, G. M. (2009b). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74. Herek, G. M. (2010). Sexual orientation differences as deficits: Science and stigma in the history of American psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 693-699.
Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353-375. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32-43. Herek, G. M., Norton, A. T., Allen, T. J., & Sims, C. L. (2010). Demographic, psychological, and social characteristics of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a U.S. probability sample. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 176-200. Higgins, D. J. (2006). Same-sex attraction in heterosexually partnered men: Reasons, rationales and reflections. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 21, 217-228. Hu, Y., & Goldman, N. (1990). Mortality differentials by marital status: An international comparison. Demography, 27, 233-250. Johnson, N. J., Backlund, E., Sorlie, P. D., & Loveless, C. A. (2000). Marital status and mortality: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Annals of Epidemiology, 10, 224238 . Just the Facts Coalition. (2008). Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for principals, educators, and school personnel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). Inside-out: A report on the experiences of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in America and the public's view on issues and politics related to sexual orientation. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/New-Surveys-on-Experiences-of-Lesbians-Gaysand-Bisexuals-and-the-Public-s-Views-Related-to-Sexual-Orientation-Report.pdf.
Kim, H., & McKenry, P. C. (2002). The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 885-911. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880-900 Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251-54. Lamb, K. A., Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: Selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 953-962. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lehrer, E. L., & Chiswick, C. U. (1993). Religion as a determinant of marital stability. Demography, 30(3), 385-404. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674697. Meyer, I. H. (2007). Prejudice and discrimination as social stressors. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities (pp. 242-267). New York: Springer. Nock, S. L. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 53-76.
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitiveaffective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328-345. Pan American Health Organization. (2012). Cures for an illness that does not exist: Purported therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation lack medical justification and are ethically unacceptable. Retrieved from: http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1770 3&Itemid=. Pascoe, E. A., & Richman, L. S. (2009). Discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531-554. Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1990). A relationship perspective on homosexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 321-349). New York: Oxford University Press. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58. 10.1-10.20. Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding womens sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (2), 329-350. Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 576-593. Raley, R. K., & Sweeney, M. M. (2007). What explains race and ethnic variation in cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and non-marital fertility? California Center for Population Research On-Line Working Paper Series, CCPR-026-07. Ramos, C., Goldberg, N. G., & Badgett, M. V. L. (2009, May). The effects of marriage equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on same-sex
couples. The Williams Institute, UCLA Law School, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ramos-Goldberg-Badgett-MAEffects-Marriage-Equality-May-2009.pdf. Ross, H., Gask, K., & Berrington, A. (2011). Civil Partnerships five years on. Population Trends, No. 145, Autumn 2011. Schoenborn, C. A. (2004). Marital status and health: United States, 1999-2002. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Number 351, December 15, 2004. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Teachman, J. D. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography, 39(2),331 351. Testa, R. J., Kinder, B. N. & Ironson, G. (1987). Heterosexual bias in the perception of loving relationships of gay males and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 163-72. Thoits, P. S. (2010). Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51 no. 1 supplement, S41-S53. Umberson, D. (1992). Relationships between adult children and their parents: psychological consequences for both generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3), 664-674. Waite, L.T. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32, 483-507. Waldron, I., Hughes, M. E., & Brooks, T. L. (1996). Marriage protection and marriage selectionprospective evidence for reciprocal effects on marital status and health. Social Science and Medicine, 43, 113-123. Wight, R., LeBlanc, A., deVries, B. & Detels, R. (2012). Stress and mental health among midlife and older gay-identified men. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 503510.
Wight, R., LeBlanc, A. & Badgett, M.(2013). Same-sex legal marriage and psychological wellbeing: Findings from the California Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2), 339-346.
EXHIBIT PX-07
EXHIBIT PX-07-A
:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-2 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1
EXHIBIT PX-07-B
EXHIBIT PX-07-C
EXHIBIT PX-07-D
EXHIBIT PX-07-E
EXHIBIT PX-07-F
EXHIBIT PX-08
EXHIBIT PX-09
WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action v. No. 13-1861-JEJ WOLF et al., Defendants.
DECLARATION OF FREDIA HURDLE I, Fredia Hurdle, declare as follows: 1. I am 50 years young. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf, et al., to describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to allow us to get married hurts us. 2. I was born and grew up in Virginia Beach. I have a commercial
drivers license. When I met Lynn I was driving a bus for Greyhound. Since 2003, as a member of the Teamsters Union, I have been a newspaper delivery driver for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 3. I have lived in a committed relationship with Lynn Hurdle for twenty-
three years. I have reviewed Lynns declaration in this case and attest that it is accurate. I agree with her description of our relationship, our lives together, and how the inability to marry has harmed us.
4.
I want to describe the hospital scene Lynn discusses, but from my
perspective. I was admitted to the hospital for abdominal pain, and the doctors told me they had to remove my gall bladder. They kept me for observation overnight, with my surgery scheduled for 10:00 the next morning. Unexpectedly they took me at 6:00 a.m., so when Lynn came at 8:30 I was gone. Because she was not considered family, they wouldnt tell her what happened or where I was. When I woke up from anesthesia in post op, I was alone. I had only been in Pittsburgh for a few years and my entire family lived in Virginia so they werent there. Waking up in the hospital, feeling lousy from surgery, I was terrified and all alone. I needed someone with me and the person I most wanted there, Lynn, wasnt there because they didnt recognize our relationship. 5. I would like to add that as a black woman who grew up in Virginia,
this has been especially hard for me. As a child, I lived in a segregated state where black people were discriminated against. I went to a segregated elementary school. Then the Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia law that made it illegal for a black person to marry a white person was unconstitutional, which is as it should be. So now being black doesnt keep me from marrying Lynn, being a woman who loves another woman does. Thats wrong. I love Lynn. We have raised a family together, and we pray and laugh together. Our family, our relationship,
EXHIBIT PX-10
WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
DECLARATION OF LYNN HURDLE I, Lynn Hurdle, declare as follows: 1. I am 44 years old. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf, et al., to describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to allow my partner and me to marry hurts us. 2. I was born and raised in Meadville, a small town in Northeast
Pennsylvania. I have lived in Pittsburgh for more than twenty years. I am a pediatric nurse and have for the past eight years worked at a pediatric practice in Pittsburghs South Hills. 3. I have been in a committed relationship with Fredia Hurdle for 23
years. The story of our meeting is one of my favorites. I was a passenger on a Greyhound bus headed to Pittsburgh. The bus driver was unfamiliar with the
route, and asked if I knew the area. Having lived here my whole life, I offered to help with directions. We ended up a little off course, but had a good time in the process. The driver was Fredia. When we got to Pittsburgh, a bit behind schedule, I asked Fredia if she wanted to go out for a drink and she said yes. For about five months after that we dated by Greyhound. Fredia then moved to Pittsburgh to join me and we have been together and in love ever since. I was a little nervous about introducing Fredia to my family but when I asked my mom what she thought, she replied, Whats not to like about Fredia! A true and correct copy of a photograph showing Fredia and me in 1993, produced in this litigation as HURDLE000077, is attached as Exhibit PX-10-A. 4. Our home has always consisted of a large extended family. When
Fredia first moved in, Ashley, my two-year-old daughter from a prior marriage, lived with us. Even though Fredia is not legally recognized as Ashleys stepparent, she was very involved in Ashleys day-to-day care. At one point we were president and treasurer at the same time of the school PTA. Ashley is now grown, living independently, getting a masters degree, and soon to be married. True and correct copies of a photograph of Fredia and me with Ashley in 1994 and a photograph of Fredia and me in 1996, produced in this litigation as HURDLE000078 and HURDLE000079, are attached as Exhibits PX-10-B and PX-10-C. Besides Ashley, we have always had a mix of children, relatives and
others, living with us. After Fredias sister died, two of her nephews and a niece lived with us for many years. We are caregivers by nature and have become known locally as the couple people go to when there are people in need of care. We took care of two children in the neighborhood when their families were going through difficult times. An elderly family friend of mine, who couldnt take care of herself, lived with us for 16 years until she passed away. We dont want to be known as the lesbian couple next door, or the interracial lesbian couple next door. We just want to be known as the caring couple in the neighborhood. 5. Fredia and I have wanted to get married for a long time, but the only
place we want to do it is in Pennsylvania. This is where I grew up, where Fredia has made her life, where we work, and where my family and our friends live. Pennsylvania, and specifically Pittsburgh, is our home. Even though other states have begun to allow marriage by same-sex couples, we have elected not to travel out of state to get married. We are committed to waiting until we can get married in Pennsylvania. We did have a commitment ceremony at a local church in 2009, where we had 200 guests, family members and friends, help us celebrate our wonderful relationship. True and correct copies of two photographs of Fredia and me on our commitment day in 2009, produced in this litigation as HURDLE000072 and HURDLE000076, are attached as Exhibits PX-10-D and
PX-10-E. But obviously that did not make us officially married under Pennsylvania law. 6. Pennsylvanias refusal to allow us to marry has injured us emotionally
and financially. If Fredia dies before me, I am not entitled to collect her pension or other job-related benefits, and I will have to pay taxes at a higher rate than would a lawfully married spouse. The same is true for Fredia if I pass before she does. We would like to file our taxes as married filing jointly, but because we cannot marry in Pennsylvania and have not married elsewhere we cannot file either our federal or state returns as married. Over the years we have had to pay money for powers of attorney and other legal documents to try to protect ourselves because we do not have that official status of married. In 2009, after the commitment ceremony, I legally changed my name to take Fredias last name, which cost us over $400 and is something we would not have had to petition for and pay for if we were an opposite-sex couple. 7. Our inability to marry resulted in a very scary situation in the 1990s.
I took Fredia to a Pittsburgh hospital with stomach pain, and they diagnosed a problem with her gall bladder. They kept her overnight and scheduled surgery for the next morning at 10:00. When I returned at 8:30 in the morning, Fredia was not in the room. Because we were not married and our relationship was not recognized as family, the only thing hospital staff would tell me is that they took Fredia early.
EXHIBIT PX-10-A
EXHIBIT PX-10-B
EXHIBIT PX-10-C
EXHIBIT PX-10-D
EXHIBIT PX-10-E
EXHIBIT PX-10-F
EXHIBIT PX-11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MInDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF et al., Defendants. ~ Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
DECLARATION OF EDWIN HILL I, Edwin Hill, declare as follows: 1. I am a 67-year-old Pennsylvania resident. I was born in Pennsylvania
and have lived in Pennsylvania most of my life. I worked for the Department of Veterans' Affairs for twenty years before my retirement in 1996, and am a veteran ofthe U.S. Navy. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. u. Wolfet al. to briefly describe why I want the Commonwealth to recognize my marriage to my husband, David Palmer, and to explain how the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania's refusal to recognize our marriage robs our relationship of the status and legitimacy accorded to others' .relationships and harms us, financially and otherwise.
3.
David and I met in 1988, while we were both attending a religious
retreat at the Kirkridge Retreat and Study Center, a Christian nondenominational retreat center in Bangor, Pennsylvania, in Northampton County. We have been together ever since. A photo of us taken in our backyard in the early 90s, produced in this litigation as HILLPALMER000286,is attached as Exhibit PX-11-A. A photo of us taken together the day this suit was filed, produced in this litigation as HILLPALMER000287, is attached as E~ibit PX-11-B. 4. Nine years after we met at Kirkridge, we bought our home from the
Kirlcridge Center and so returned to live where our love began. After I retired from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, David and I operated a bed and breakfast out of our home, which has a beautiful view over the Delaware River Valley, until we retired "for real" in 2008. 5. David and I married in May 2013, to mark our 25th anniversary as a
couple. We would have preferred to marry in Pennsylvania, where we both were born and educated, where we met and fell in love and where we live, but we did not believe that Pennsylvania would allow us to marry any time soon. We chose Maine as the place for our wedding because my closest living relatives are there. My 90-year-old aunt attended our wedding and served as our flower girl! A redacted copy of our Certificate of Marriage, produced in this litigation as HILLPALMER000109,is attached as Exhibit PX-11-C.
6.
After 25 years, neither David nor I expected that being married would
change the way we feel about our relationship, but it did. I cannot express in words how much it meant to me that our love was finally recognized, that I could at long last call him my "husvand." We were so excited to be married while we were in Maine, and as we drove home through all the states that recognize our marriage, And then we crossed the Delaware River in to Pennsylvania, so close to where we live, and we looked at each other and said,"We're not married anymore." And that hurt. 7. It still hurts. Living so close to New Jersey and having so many
friends there, we cross the Delaware frequently. And each time we come home, we remember that here we are second class citizens. 8. Because our marriage is not recognized in Pennsylvania, we have
spent hundreds of dollars to have an attorney prepare wills, health care powers of attorney, and financial_ powers of attorney, to try to establish some ofthe protections that married couples have by default. Even with the documents that we have, I worry that some ofthem might not be recognized in a time.of crisis. 9. As seniors on fixed incomes, David and I both worry about what will
happen when one of us dies. We are healthy now, but we are both near 70. Everything that we own, we own together. We have planned and saved to protect one another and make sure that the one of us who survives longer will be taken
care of, financially. But Pennsylvania's non-recognition of our marriage threatens that security. We have been advised that when one of us dies, any inheritance from one to the other including one half ofthe value of our home and joint bank accounts will be taxed at the rate of 15%,the highest rate. And there is no agreement or document we can prepare that will change that. For that reason, we have set aside some of our savings in a joint account so that the surviving husband will not have to sell our home to pay the inheritance tax. We would like to know that those savings from our years of work could help sustain one or both of us as we age. But instead we must keep that money to one side and plan to have it go to the Commonwealth instead of supporting us. If our marriage were recognized by Pennsylvania, I understand that we would pay no inheritance tax at that the survivor inherits. 10. We have considered moving to a state that recognizes our marriage on the assets
all
for the financial security that would afford. But it would break our hearts to have to leave the beautiful home that we have made together, here in the place where we met and fell in love. 11. This year for the first time we filed our federal tax return as a married
couple. We will actually pay more in taxes as a married couple because our combined income will place us in a higher tax bracket than either of us were in before. Our financial advisor warned us that we could pay hundreds of additional
dollars in federal taxes after we were married, but of course that did not deter us. We love each other and we wanted that love to be recognized,just like anybody else, in marriage. 12. Unlike the federal taxes, Pennsylvania will not permit us to file as a
married couple. I want us to be able to file our Pennsylvania income taxes as the married couple that we are. Checking the "Single" box feels terrible,just like it feels terrible to cross the Delaware River each time we return home. It feels like we are losing something, something important. 13. If David or I were to die in Pennsylvania, where we live, I would want
our respective death certificates to reflect our status as married and for the survivor to be listed as the surviving spouse on the other's, death certificate. I understand that, because ofPennsylvania's refusal to recognize our marriage, I would not be listed as David's surviving spouse if he were to die before me, and he would not be listed as my surviving spouse if I were to die first. This is yet another example of the Commonwealth disrespecting our relationship and our commitments to one another.
14.
T make tihi~ decl~~ation frt~m my own knowledge ofthe fats at~d
circumstances set forth above. Tf necessary,I could ~d would t~sti~y to th~s~ facts an.c1 circumstances. I dectaxe under penalty ofperjttry that the ~are~oing is true and correct. .~~ executed an; ~~ ~~/~ Edwin Hi1~
EXHIBIT PX-11-A
EXHIBIT PX-11B
EXHIBIT PX-11-C
EXHIBIT PX-12
IN THF,UNIT~p STATES DISTRICT CnURT FQR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT ~F PENNSYLVANIA
WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, ~ Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ WOLF et al., Defendants.
DECLARATION OF DAVID PALMER I, David Palmer, declare as follows: 1. I am a 66-year-old a Pennsylvania resident. I was born in
Pennsylvania and have lived in Pennsylvania most of my life. I worked for the Newark Museum for thirty years, most recently as the Director of Exhibitions, until my retirement in 2004. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolfet al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania's refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. I have reviewed the Declaration of Edwin Hill, which was also made
in support ofPlaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Ed's statements in his declaration.
4,
I am always aware, when we travel, that c ur ~~rriage is ~'espec~ed ar~d
acknowled~~d when we arc away from hams. ~ve~ry single time we crass the I~~lawar~ fiver to come hor~.e, my heart dxops a little as i r~rnember that here,i~ our home, vve are not married. I don't ChX;~lc we deserve that. 5. I agree that Penr~sylv~~.ia's ~n~n-recagnitian of c ur marriage
disrespects and devalues zx~y live or Ed and the cammit;~x~.ent that T have made to hirn. 6, Like E~,I wit tQ be ably to dec~~re myself ~s "Married" on my
Pennsylvania a~~orne t,a~c. return. Yam mt~r~ried to Ed,so ch~ckyrig the "dingle"$ox feels wrong, 7. Like Ed, ~uv'l~en he and I they I want our' death cer#ific~.#.es Co ~'eflect our
mar~-i~~~. Aid,like Ed,I w~r~'y about the efFect of the Pennsylvania inheritance tax o~ the survivor after aye of us digs. $, I ~zxake this declaration ~rc~m r~ny own knawledg~ o~ tl~e fads and
~ircurnstances set farts abar~e. ~f ~,ec~ssary, T could a~:d would testify to th+~se facts and circumst~~lces. Z declare under penalty ofp~x~u~~'y that the faregoi~g is due anc~ correct.
executed an:
~ ;.c, ,~~~~
:~~~,~'..~~ `_-:~.~~ .~~ ,...~ ~'L~avid Palrtaej~
EXHIBIT PX-13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF HEATHER POEHLER I, Heather Poehler, declare as follows: 1. I am 44 years old, and a Pennsylvania resident. I am a Medicaid Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
Liaison Manager at a healthcare auditing firm. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. I have lived with my wife, Kath, in a committed relationship for 10
years. (A true and correct copy of a photograph of me and Kath taken on May 30, 2007, produced in this litigation as POEHLER000365, is attached as Exhibit PX13-A. A true and correct copy of a photograph of me and Kath taken in 2012, produced in this litigation as POEHLER000371, is attached as Exhibit PX-13-B.)
We live in Downingtown, in Chester County, and are active in a roller derby league there. (A true and correct copy of a photograph of me and Kath in our roller derby gear taken at the Caln Skating Center in Downingtown some time around 2012, produced in this litigation as POEHLER000366, is attached as Exhibit PX-13-C.) We own a house together off of a country road on 8 acres of land, and we have three dogs that we rescued from an animal shelter, two cats, and seven chickens. (A redacted copy of our deed, produced in this litigation as POEHLER00013538, is attached as Exhibit PX-13-D.) Kath and I have laid down roots in Pennsylvania, and we love it here. The idea of having to leave the community we love in order to have our marriage recognized saddens me. 4. On September 10, 2005, Kath and I got married in Massachusetts, our
home state at the time. I changed my last name to share Kaths. (A redacted copy of our marriage certificate, produced in this litigation as POEHLER000001, is attached as Exhibit PX-13-E.) We celebrated with a beautiful wedding with our close friends and family. (True and correct copies of photographs from our wedding, produced in this litigation as POEHLER000361 and POEHLER000363, are attached as Exhibits PX-13-F and PX-13-G, respectively.) 5. We relocated to Pennsylvania when I was offered a job here in 2007,
during the economic downturn. Going from being recognized as a married couple in Massachusetts to being treated as legal strangers in Pennsylvania has been hard
for us logistically, financially, and emotionally. We have had to pay lawyers to draw up documents to try to protect our relationship, such as wills and powers of attorney. And we had difficulty preparing tax returns and completing mortgage paperwork in Pennsylvania because accountants and bank officials were unsure whether to treat us as married or unmarried. And we pay more for health insurance than we would if our marriage were recognized in Pennsylvania because we pay state taxes on the health insurance for Kath that I get through my employer. (A redacted copy of a December 5, 2013 letter from ADP notifying me that Kaths health insurance benefit was treated as imputed income, produced in this litigation as POEHLER000180, is attached as Exhibit PX-13-H.) 6. Its stressful that our marital status changes when we cross state lines.
Recently, we went to Baltimore for a weekend and while we were waiting for our table at dinner, we realized we didnt know whether we were considered married in Maryland. We Googled it, and were happy to learn that Maryland does recognize our marriage. But this just underscored that Pennsylvania doesnt, and that we have to leave our home state to be recognized again as the married couple that we are. 7. 8. I love Kath, and I want Pennsylvania to recognize our marriage. Pennsylvanias non-recognition of our marriage disrespects us and the
commitment that Kath and I have made to one another. We felt this particularly
acutely when I underwent surgeries for a broken leg and needed a blood transfusion, and when Kath had to be hospitalized for a severe allergic reaction. Because we are not recognized as spouses here, neither of us is automatically legally authorized to make medical decisions for the other. Instead, with each trip to the hospital, we have had to explain our relationship and be prepared to prove it with paperwork. 9. Although Kath and I are a married couple, we cannot file our
Pennsylvania taxes jointly, despite the fact that we can now file our federal taxes jointly. I feel that it is wrong to say that I am Single on the Pennsylvania tax return, because I am married. I want to be able to confidently declare myself as Married on my Pennsylvania income tax return and file jointly with Kath. 10. Should I or Kath die in Pennsylvania, where we live, I want my and
Kaths respective death certificates to reflect our marriage. It is deeply upsetting that, because of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage, I would not be listed as Kaths spouse. 11. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
circumstances set forth above. If necessary, I could and would testify to these facts and circumstances.

,'_~ ~s ` ,~i <~;,,, ,: ~r. '.~F _.~,-.~ ~,., '~~,
~~,~ ~~{
,.,,..T ,--.
~: :~ '
;~
~~~
~ ;:
EXHIBIT PX-13-A
3-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-5 Filed 04/21/14 Pag
EXHIBIT PX-13-B
EXHIBIT PX-13-C
EXHIBIT PX-13-D
EXHIBIT PX-13-E
EXHIBIT PX-13-F
EXHIBIT PX-13-G
EXHIBIT PX-13-H
EXHIBIT PX-14
DECLARATION OF KATH POEHLER I, Kath Poehler, declare as follows: 1. I am 42 years old, and a Pennsylvania resident. I own a dog training
and dog walking business. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. I have reviewed the Declaration of Heather Poehler, which was also
made in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Heathers statements in that declaration. 4. I love my wife Heather, which is why I proposed to her in 2004.
r~~r3:~~~i.c~~ ~s~'~~~~~;,ra~~.~:~~:~~;~ ~~~h:~~s~~~~ t:~.d:~~~~ ~~~i~~::~~a~~~~~~:i~~ ~hr T~~tl~~:e~ 1~~~~~ ~i~~~~ its t~~~:~.~~+~~3~~~-;
.~ 1
.. .~.~3:~I'f~~?`.~~ti#:l~l:~.:~~3~<<:~'fY'1:~ ~.~~;~::t'~~~~t~7_l :~'~t:~:'~`.~3..:~:1I:~.:lt)E~.3~:~Y' '~~O<.;1~
~:li~;~h:~r:
~.a~:~;~~~~~t~x~`~ti~3~~3 ;Yt:~d:~tT:(~.~i
~: ~::T .k f~'~at;'.L>k' ~:~;tz9~ 'S?~~f' 'ti`6'~:I"Cv 1~_i'~.i'E<1:4.'{~. 'dw~'~'.~~:~'-~~~: ^
~l:~'r::~ 's~l''c~tl:t ~7~:x E~1'7:~~'173:~% ~'~'S~3F~G1'3:F~~ ~~s~~~7
~.
I i~~~~c~:~ t~t3:y t~i<:41~.~rtt~t?~ :~~Y~:~~~.:t~~~ti':~~~r:~ ~:i~~~~~~~1~~~~;~~:':~~~~? ~'~~~:~ ~,~i.~.
~~i~i~:t'~ t7_t~_~~:c~r ,}~~~;~~:t_~' ~:3~~ j)~3"Jlti~ti :~k_~f tgt~ fx'e~~~~~~~~ ~3 Q~'~a.~ ~n~~ c:.uz~'~~~t<.
;,~~-..
v..,;
EXHIBIT PX-15
DECLARATION OF FERNANDO CHANG-MUY I, Fernando Chang-Muy, declare as follows: 1. 2. I am 59 years old, and a Pennsylvania resident. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to allow my partner and me to marry is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. My partner, Len Rieser, and I have lived together in a committed
relationship for 32 years. 4. I was born in Cuba and emigrated to the United States with my family
when I was a child. Len and I moved to Philadelphia together in 1982 when I was offered a job here. Philadelphia has been our home ever since.
5.
Len and I are the proud parents of Isabel, whom we adopted when she
was 10 months old. (A true and correct copy of a photograph of Len, Isabel, and me in our home, produced in this litigation as CHANGMUYRIESER001342, is attached as Exhibit PX-15-A. A true and correct copy of a photograph of Len, Isabel, and me when Isabel was a baby, produced in this litigation as CHANGMUYRIESER001347, is attached as Exhibit PX-15-B.) Len became Isabels legal parent first, in 1994, and I completed a second-parent adoption in 1995. This two-step process, which meant that for an entire year I was not Isabels legal parent, would have been unnecessary if we had been married. Isabel is now nearly 22, attends Temple University, works as a Sunday School teacher at our church, and also works part-time at a program at Bryn Mawr College. 6. Len and I are both lawyers and professors who have dedicated our
careers to the public interest. I have taught courses on immigration and refugee law and policy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and non-profit management at the Universitys School of Social Policy and Practice. 7. Len and I entered into a civil union in Vermont on February 14, 2004.
(A redacted copy of our Vermont License and Certificate of Civil Union, produced in this litigation as CHANGMUYRIESER000242, is attached as Exhibit PX-15C.) We celebrated the occasion with our family at Lens parents house there. (A true and correct copy of a photograph of Len and me and Isabel taken on the day of
our civil union, produced in this litigation as CHANGMUYRIESER001345, is attached as Exhibit PX-15-D.) Although obtaining the civil union was an important moment for us, it also reinforced the fact that our relationship is not legally recognized in the state where we actually live. 8. I love Len and I want to be able to marry Len in Pennsylvania, the
state where weve lived for more than 30 years, and have our marriage recognized in Pennsylvania. We view marriage as an appropriate recognition of the deep and permanent commitment we have made to each other. If we could marry, it would also mean a lot to Isabel, who would like us to be married to each other. 9. When Isabel was growing up, it was important to Len and me that
Isabel have the same sense of security that any other child gets from being part of a loving family. Len and I made a point, when Isabel was in elementary and secondary school, of making sure that her teachers understood that we were a family and that we wanted to be active in the school community just like any other parents. Fortunately, we found school personnel who supported us, as well as supportive health care providers, neighbors, and a supportive religious community. 10. Len and I recognize that, even if we had been able to be married while
we were raising Isabel, the process of establishing us as a family still would have had its challenges because there are people who disapprove of relationships like ours. But we feel that if marriage had been available to us, a major barrier to our
acceptance and well-being as a family would have been removed. Even now, the availability of marriage would make a significant, positive difference to our life as a family. 11. Because Len and I are lawyers, we are particularly aware of how
vulnerable we are by being excluded from the many legal protections that go along with marriage. We have done everything that lawyers can do to protect ourselves in the absence of marriage, such as drawing up wills and powers of attorney. But we know that there is nothing we can do to access most of the protections and benefits available to married couples. 12. Pennsylvanias refusal to allow us to marry belittles the commitment
that Len and I made to one another and devalues our family. 13. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
EXHIBIT PX-15-A
EXHIBIT PX-15-B
EXHIBIT PX-15-C
EXHIBIT PX-15-D
EXHIBIT PX-16
DECLARATION OF LEN RIESER I, Len Rieser, declare as follows: 1. 2. I am 65 years old, and a Pennsylvania resident. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the impact, on me and my partner Fernando Chang-Muy, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to permit us to marry. 3. I have reviewed the Declaration of Fernando Chang-Muy, which was
also made in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Fernandos statements in that declaration.
4.
Fernando and I have lived together in a committed relationship for 32
years. I grew up in Vermont, but have lived in Philadelphia with Fernando since 1982. 5. My career has been in public-interest law, with a focus on serving
children and families. I worked for thirty years at the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, eventually becoming Co-Director and then Director. I left that position in 2012 and am now teaching at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Temple University Law School. 6. Except for the fact that Pennsylvania does not recognize it as such,
our relationship is indistinguishable from any other long-term marriage. Fernando and I have bought a house together, lived together, and managed our finances together. We have participated in community activities, and have developed a circle of shared friends. We adopted a child together and raised her to adulthood, and served as informal foster parents to another young adult. We have supported each other through illnesses and misfortunes, shared in the care of our aging parents, and helped each other deal with their deaths and the passing of other relatives and loved ones. And we have weathered the ups and downs of any longterm relationship, having committed ourselves to working through problems and differences rather than allowing them to break us apart.
7.
Pennsylvanias refusal to allow us to marry means, to me, that the
state considers our relationshipregardless of the degree of commitment that we have brought to itto be less genuine, less significant, and less worthy than the relationships of opposite-gender couples. 8. Pennsylvanias refusal to allow us to marry has also had some very
tangible consequences. For example, we have had to make special arrangements via wills, powers of attorney, and the like, which would not have been necessary if we were married and may not provide us or our daughter with the same level of protection than would be available to married couples. We had to adopt our daughter separately rather than together, and had to make special arrangements to make sure that schools, doctors, and other people and entities would recognize us both as her parents. We have paid taxes that we would not have had to pay if we had been married. And in many other respects, and in an ongoing way, our unrecognized relationship has resulted in effort and expenses that we would not otherwise have incurred. 9. I love Fernando, and want to be able to marry Fernando and have our
marriage recognized in Pennsylvania. 10. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
EXHIBIT PX-17
WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF et al., Defendants. ~ Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
DECLARATION OF DAWN PLUMMER I, Dawn Plummer, declare as follows: 1. I am 37 years old, a Pennsylvania resident, and a development
.coordinator for The Poverty Initiative, an anti-poverty organization. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolfet al. to briefly describe why I want to be married to my partner, niana Poison, and to explain and how the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania's refusal to allow Diana and me to declare our love and commitment through marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful to me and my family. 3. Diana and I inet in 1997, and we began our relationship a couple of
years later, in 2000. We have been together ever since.
4.
In 2005, while we were living in Brooklyn, New York, we registered
as domestic partners with the City of New York. In October 2007, we had a commitment ceremony during a weekend in the Catskills with about 50 guests. True and correct copies of our ceremony invitation and program, produced in this litigation as PLUMMERPOLSON000001-2, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-17A. A true and correct copy of a photograph of us with Dianas family at the ceremony, produced in this litigation as PLUMMERPOLSON000320, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-17-B. 5. We moved from New York to Pittsburgh in 2011. The move to
Pennsylvania was a homecoming for me; I grew up in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and most of my family is in Pennsylvania. We now jointly own a home in Pittsburgh. A redacted copy of our deed, produced in this litigation as PLUMMERPOLSON000187, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-17-C. As we expected, Pittsburgh generally has been a great city in which to raise our two children. 6. I want to be married to Diana, and I want to marry her in
Pennsylvania, where we live, where we have made our home, and where we are part of the community. I understand that, even though we meet all of the other criteria for marriage, Pennsylvania will not allow us to marry because we are both women.
7.
Family is very important to Diana and me. We have two sons. E.P.,
who was born while we lived in New Yorlc, is five years old. J.P., who was born in Pittsburgh, is seventeen months old. I gave birth to E.P., and Diana gave birth to J.P. True and correct copies of photographs of us at home and in our neighborhood with our children, produced in this litigation as PLUMMERPOLSON000313 and 319, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-17-D. 8. We completed asecond-parent adoption for E.P. in New Yorlc, so
Diana and I are now both legally recognized parents of him. A true and correct copy of a photo of us outside the family court after the adoption was completed, produced in this litigation as PLUMMERPOLSON000317,is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-17-E. 9. We are currently saving money to complete asecond-parent adoption
for J.P. here in Pennsylvania. We understand that J.P.'s second-parent adoption will cost at least $2,500. Until the second-parent adoption is completed, I have no legal tie to J.P. and I am not listed on his birth certificate as his parent. A redacted copy of his birth certificate, produced in this litigation as PLLTMMERPOLSON000010,is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-17-F. This is true despite the fact that Diana and I together dreamed of adding him to our family, together prepared for his arrival, and have functioned as a married couple since long before his birth. For example, while Diana was pregnant with J.P., there was
a time when she was unemployed and I was the primary source of our family's income. 10. It is distressing to think that, for example, if I had to take J.P. to the
hospital when Diana was not available, I might not be able to make medical decisions for hiin and I might not otherwise be treated as his parent. This is true despite the fact that I function in every way as one of J.P.'s parents. 11. I similarly worry about medical decisions for Diana and me, should
either of us be incapacitated. I worry that, if she or I ended up in an emergency room,the medical staff might not recognize our relationshipand that we should be recognized as each other's medical decisionmakerif we did not have our health care proxies with us at the time. 12. In addition to paying for attorneys to do E.P.'s second-parent adoption
and draft our health care proxies, we have paid for attorneys to draft our wills and powers of attorney for financial decisions. We have had to build what I call "legal scaffolding" around our family with these documents to obtain the protections that married couples receive by default. The associated expenses have been a financial burden on us, as a young family without a lot of extra resources. Moreover, the fact that we are barred from receiving these protections through marriage makes me feel that I and my family are stigmatized and demeaned.
13.
Shortly after moving to Pittsburgh, our family was refused a "family
99
health insurance plan, meaning that Diana and I had to purchase separate insurance plans. I was upset by this, because we are a family. 14. The fact that Pennsylvania does not recognize our relationship and
allow us to marry has caused other, more regular insults. Diana and I understand our relationship to be that of a married couple. But in filling out forms, we have to check the "Single" box, even though that is not how we understand ourselves. Having to categorize myself as "Single" feels like a slap in the face. 15. I want us to be able to file our taxes as a married couple. Each year,
we have to pay a tax preparer to help us determine how to handle our jointly owned assets in our separate tax returns, and we have to pay separate tax preparation fees. And, again, we have to check the "Single" box, which demeans our relationship. 16. Additionally, I want legal recognition of my family and my
commitment to Diana for my children's salve. It is increasingly difficult to explain to E.P. why his parents are not married and cannot get married. J.P. is not yet old enough to aslc questions, but he will be soon. In addition to the hardship on Diana and me, as explained above, Pennsylvania's refusal to allow my family to be treated like other families is an injustice to my children.
17.
I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
circumstances set forth above. If necessary, I could and would testify to these facts and circumstances. I declare under. penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
d~
executed on:
~~~ ~' {
',
~~~~...~
Dawn Plummer
EXHIBIT PX-17-A
:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-7 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1
EXHIBIT PX-17-B
EXHIBIT PX-17-C
EXHIBIT PX-17-D
EXHIBIT PX-17-E
-01861-JEJ Document 115-7 Filed 04/21/14 P
EXHIBIT PX-17-F
EXHIBIT PX-18
WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, r~ WOLF et al., Defendants. ~ Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
DECLARATION OF DIANA POLSON I, Diana Polson, declare as follows: 1. I am 37 years old, a Pennsylvania resident, and work with an
organization that focuses on improving the economy in Pennsylvania for working people. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolfet al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania's refusal to allow Dawn and me to declare our love and commitment through marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful to me and my family. 3. 2011. My partner, Dawn Plummer, and I have lived in Pittsburgh since
4.
I have reviewed the Declaration of Dawn Plummer, which was also
made in support ofPlaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Dawn's statements in her declaration. 5. Dawn and I consider ourselves a married couple, and Pennsylvania's
refusal to allow Dawn and me to marry disrespects the commitment that we have made to one another and devalues our family. I, too, find it difficult to explain to our five-year-old son, E.P., why his parents are not married. I hope that we will be able to marry in Pennsylvania before our younger son, J.P., is old enough to ask the same questions. 6. I make this declaration from my own knowledge ofthe facts and
circumstances set forth above. If necessary,I could and would testify to these facts and circumstances. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
executed ors.
~~ ~~'~l%~i~l r~`~` "~~"~~ Diana Poison
~-~~
EXHIBIT PX-19
DECLARATION OF ANGELA GILLEM I, Angela Gillem, declare as follows: 1. I am a 61-year-old Pennsylvania resident. I am a clinical psychologist
and professor at Arcadia University outside Philadelphia, where I have worked since 1993. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe why I want the Commonwealth to recognize my marriage to my wife, Gail Lloyd, and to explain how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage robs our relationship of the status and legitimacy accorded to others relationships and causes us economic harm. 3. I grew up outside of Washington, D.C. and moved to Pennsylvania in
1986. Gail and I met in 1994, when we were introduced by a friend. We began
dating a couple of years later and moved in together in 1997. Gail is an artist and I was drawn to her from the moment we met. I was and still am impressed with the intensity with which she focuses her attention on whomever she is talking to at the time. She makes you feel like you are the most important person in the world. My appreciation and admiration for her has only grown over the years we have been together. 4. We love doing things together, whether it is watching a film,
traveling, visiting museums, eating out at restaurants, or reading. A photo of us on a trip to Long Island, produced in this litigation as GILLEMLLOYD000129, is attached as Exhibit PX-19-A. A photo of us out to dinner with friends, produced in this litigation as GILLEMLLOYD000126, is attached as Exhibit PX-19-B. 5. Gail and I were married in the District of Columbia on November 18,
2013, with my brother and Gails mother and brother as witnesses. A redacted copy of our Certificate of Marriage, produced in this litigation as GILLEMLLOYD000117, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-19-C. We had
spoken of marrying for a long time, but it did not seem that it could be a reality until after the Supreme Courts decision in June, striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 6. Before being married in the District of Columbia, we tried to obtain a
marriage license in Pennsylvania, our home. On July 1, 2013, we went to the
office of the Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court of Bucks County to apply for a marriage license. Gail stepped up to the counter and asked for an application for a marriage license and the clerk asked if her fianc was present. When Gail pointed to me, the clerk said she could not give us a license, but asked us to wait. After a few minutes she brought back a supervisor, who said that they were sorry, but that the law forbade them from giving us a license, and that they would be happy to do it if the law changed. They were very kind, but while we were waiting another couple a man and woman stepped up to the counter and were given an application to fill out, no questions asked. That made me feel like a second class citizen in my home state. 7. We would have much preferred to marry in Pennsylvania, but did not
know when we would be able to, and decided that we could not wait. The fact that the federal government recognizes our marriage affords us greater financial and legal security in certain areas of our lives. This year we will pay less in federal income tax because of being able to file our federal income taxes jointly, and I have been able to use my flexible spending account to pay for Gails medical expenses because we are married. 8. It has always been a concern for me that we could not marry, and,
now, that our marriage is not recognized by the Commonwealth. Gail is an artist, so she does not draw a steady paycheck or contribute to Social Security. Because
of that, I have taken every step I can to ensure her financial security in the event that I were to die or otherwise be unable to work. We registered as Life Partners with the City of Philadelphia in August 2002 so that I could add Gail to my health insurance plan at work, and we have spent hundreds of dollars to have wills and powers of attorney drawn up in order to duplicate, where possible, the protections that would be automatic if our marriage were recognized. A true and correct copy of our Philadelphia Certificate of Life Partnership, produced in this litigation as GILLEMLLOYD000001, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-19-D. 9. But it is simply not possible to duplicate all of the financial and legal
protections that married couples receive and I still worry about Gails financial security should I die first. I know, for instance, that if I die, Gail will have to pay the Commonwealth inheritance tax of fifteen percent on half of the value of our home and joint bank accounts, and there is no agreement or document we can prepare that will change that. We have been advised that when one of us dies, the other could owe over $100,000 in taxes to the Commonwealth. And Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage might mean that Gail cannot collect my Social Security benefits if I die first. I live every day with the fear that the steps I have taken will not be enough to protect Gail if something should happen to me.
10.
Besides the financial benefits, it simply feels right to be married and
to finally be able to celebrate and acknowledge the relationship Gail and I have had for 18 years. And it hurts when we cannot do that. 11. This year we could file our federal tax return as a married couple, but
have to identify ourselves as single on our Pennsylvania returns. I want us to be able to file our Pennsylvania income taxes as the married couple that we are. Checking the "Single" box feels dishonest, and like a denial of my relationship with Gail. 12. If Gail or I were to die in Pennsylvania, where we live, I would want
our respective death certificates to reflect our status as married and for the survivor to be listed as the surviving spouse on the other's death certificate. I understand that, as the law stands today, that would not happen. That is another way that the Commonwealth denies and disrespects our relationship. 13. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the tacts and
circumstances set forth above. If necessary, I could and would testify to these facts and circumstances. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on:
-1/(r/If
5
EXHIBIT PX-19-A
EXHIBIT PX-19-B
EXHIBIT PX-19-C
EXHIBIT PX-19-D
EXHIBIT PX-20
DECLARATION OF GAIL LLOYD I, Gail Lloyd, declare as follows: 1. I am a 55-year-old Pennsylvania resident, having moved to
Philadelphia from my home town of Silver Spring, Maryland in 1979. I am a filmmaker and a visual artist, creating works of art in ceramics, photography and sculpture. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. I have reviewed the Declaration of Angela Gillem, which was also
made in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Angelas statements in her declaration.
4.
Marrying Angela has had a profound impact on me - much more than
I expected after 18 years together. It means more than I can say to finally have our love and commitment treated with respect. And it hurts to realize that my home state, of all places, still does not do that. 5. Like Angela, I want to be able to declare myself as "Married" on my
Pennsylvania income tax return. Checking the "Single" box feels wrong. 6. Like Angela, when she and I die, I want our death certificates to
reflect our marriage. And, like Angela, I worry about the fmancial ramifications, should one of us die, of Pennsylvania's refusal to recognize our marriage. When
we bought our home in 1998, it needed a lot of work. Angela and I put a lot of money and time into renovating the house and making it into a beautiful place to live. It feels particularly hurtful that when one of us dies, the other will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes just to stay in the home we built together. 7. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
Executed on:
EXHIBIT PX-21
DECLARATION OF HELENA MILLER I, Helena Miller, declare as follows: 1. consultant. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary I am 40 years old, a Pennsylvania resident, and an education
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. fall of 2011. 4. I have reviewed the Declaration of Dara Raspberry, M.D. which was I have lived in Philadelphia with my wife, Dara Raspberry, since the
also made in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Daras statements in her declaration.
EXHIBIT PX-22
DECLARATION OF DARA RASPBERRY, M.D. I, Dara Raspberry, declare as follows: 1. I am 43 years old, a Pennsylvania resident, and an emergency
medicine physician at Einstein Medical Center Philadelphia. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. of 2011. 4. On September 25, 2010, while we lived in New York, we married in I have lived in Philadelphia with my wife, Helena Miller, since the fall
Connecticut. Our wedding weekend was a joyous occasion for us and our family and friends. True and correct copies of our wedding invitation and program,
produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000001, 2, and 8, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-A. A true and correct copy of a photograph from our wedding, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000294, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-B. 5. We married because we wanted to make a public commitment to each
other in front of our friends and families, we wanted to join our families together, and we wanted to start a family of our own. 6. While we lived in New York, our Connecticut marriage was
recognized by New York for at least some purposes. Shortly before we left New York, it began permitting same-sex couples to enter into marriages in New York. 7. We moved from New York to Philadelphia in late 2011 to be closer to
family because we were hoping to soon have children. Helenas family lives in the Philadelphia area. My mother has since moved to the area. 8. We enjoy living in Philadelphia and have established our home here.
A true and correct copy of a photograph of Helena and me at a Phillies game, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000292, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-C. 9. We jointly own our house in the West Philadelphia neighborhood. A
redacted copy of our deed, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000136, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-D. We have
enjoyed celebrating holidays at our home with our families. True and correct copies of photographs of our Thanksgiving and Hanukkah celebrations in 2013, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000297 and 298, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-E. 10. The cost of moving to Philadelphia to be close to family, however,
was to be effectively unmarried and, thus, to be considered less of a family in the eyes of the state than we were in New York. 11. Our dream to start a family came true on May 28, 2013, when Helena
gave birth to our daughter, Z.R. But, painfully, I was not recognized as one of Z.R.s parents at her birth, despite my marriage to Helena. I understand that, if our marriage had been recognized in Pennsylvania, I would automatically and immediately have been recognized as a parent of Z.R. 12. Z.R.s original birth certificate was issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Health. It named Helena as Z.R.s mother. It nowhere named me as Z.R.s parent. Instead, to be legally recognized as Z.R.s mother, I had to obtain a second-parent adoption of her, which was not completed until September 6, 2013, when Z.R. was about three months old. A redacted copy of the Decree of Adoption, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000066, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-F. True and correct copies of photographs of our family
after the adoption was completed, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000295 and 296, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-G. 13. Pennsylvanias non-recognition of our marriage disrespects the
commitment that Helena and I have made to one another and devalues our family. I felt this particularly acutely during the time between Z.R.s birth and the completion of the second-parent adoption. 14. The second-parent adoption cost approximately $1,400 in attorneys
fees and $442.96 in court and other costs. A redacted copy of an invoice and summary of costs from our attorney, produced in this litigation as MILLERRASPBERRY000067 and 71, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-22-H. In addition to the financial cost of having to complete the second-parent adoption, Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my family caused me stress and worry about potential non-recognition of my relationship with Z.R. if anything happened to Helena before the adoption was completed. 15. Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage causes me worry in
other areas of my life, too. For example, if my marriage to Helena were recognized by Pennsylvania, I understand that she would be the default decisionmaker on my behalf if I became incapacitated. But because our marriage is not recognized, we have had to hire an attorney to draw up health care powers of attorney, designating each other as medical decision-makers. When I had surgery,
I had to remember to put my power of attorney naming Helena on file at the hospital; when Helena gave birth to Z.R., she had to put her power of attorney naming me on file. 16. Although Helena and I are a married couple, we cannot file our
Pennsylvania income taxes jointly, despite the fact that we can now file our federal income taxes jointly. I feel that it is wrong to say that I am Single on the Pennsylvania income tax return, because I am married. I want to be able to declare myself as Married on my Pennsylvania income tax return. 17. Should I or Helena die in Pennsylvania, where we live, I want our
death certificates to reflect our marriage. I understand that, because of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage, if Helena were to die first, I would not be listed as her surviving spouse (and vice versa). 18. I hope that my marriage will be recognized by Pennsylvania before
Z.R. is old enough to be aware that the Commonwealth does not consider her family to be deserving of the same status and respect afforded to other Pennsylvania families. 19. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
EXHIBIT PX-22-A
EXHIBIT PX-22-B
EXHIBIT PX-22-C
EXHIBIT PX-22-D
EXHIBIT PX-22-E
EXHIBIT PX-22-F
EXHIBIT PX-22-G
EXHIBIT PX-22-H
The Law Office ofDavid C. Berman

2300 Computer Avenue,Suite G-2h Willow Grove,PA 19090-1756 Ph: 215-540-5857 Fax: 215-754-4645 September 26,2013
Helena~Dara Miller/Raspberry Plu~phia,PA
~~~~~~~~~~ RE: DATE Feb-20-13 Mar-O 1-13 Mar-14-13 Mar-19-13 Second Parent Adoption DESCRIPTION HOURS .0.50 4.20 0.20 0.10
File #: Inv #:
MIL-SPA 113
AMOUNT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LAWYER DCB DCB DCB DCB
0.50
Mar-20-13 Apr-02-13 Apr-OS-13 Apr-16-13 0.20
0.00
0.00
DCB
DCB
0.10
0.40 0.30
0.00
0.00 0.00
DCB
DCB DCB
Aur-17-1.3 Apr-25-13 Apr-29-13
0.?0 0.2U 0.50
0.00 0.00 0.00
DCB DCB DCB
Invoice #: Apr-30-13
May-01-13 May-06-13 May-10-13 May-30-13
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-9 Filed 04/21/14 Page 41 of 44 September 26, 2013 Page 2 1413
0.20 0.30 0.10 0.10 0. 0
]
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00
DCB DCB DCB DCB DCB
Jun-11-13 Jun-12-13 Jun-17-13

Jun-28-13
0.20
0.30
0.00
0.00
DCB DCB DCB

DCB
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
DCB
Jul-02-13
Jul-03-13
0.30 0.20
0.00 0.04
DCB DCB
Jul-OS-13 Jul-09-13 Jul-11-13
0.30 0.14 0.20
0.00 0.00 O.UO
DCB DCB DCB
Jul-16-13
Jul-19-13
0.10 0.10 0.30 2.50 Flat Fee Agreement
0.00
o. oa
DCB DCB DCB DCB. DCB
Sep-04-13
Sep-06-13
0.00 0.00 1,400.00
Sep-26-13
fAYflDEMNl
MILLEpUSPBEgRY000068
EXHIBIT PX-23
DECLARATION OF RONALD GEBHARDTSBAUER I, Ronald Gebhardtsbauer, declare as follows: 1. I am 61 years old and live in State College, Pennsylvania with my
husband Greg Wright. I am an actuary and professor of actuarial science at Penn State University. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. I have lived with Gregory Wright since 1994. Greg and I married in
Rockville, Maryland in November 2013 because we are madly in love with each other. Greg is my best friend and we have a wonderful, happy life together. I want my marriage to be recognized in Pennsylvania.
4.
I have reviewed the Declaration of Gregory Wright, which was also
made in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Gregs statements in his declaration. 5. I agree that Pennsylvanias non-recognition of my marriage
disrespects and devalues my love for Greg and the commitment that we have made to each other. 6. Like Greg, I want to be able to declare myself as Married on my
Pennsylvania income tax return. I am married to Greg, so checking the Single box feels wrong. 7. Because of my professional experience with Social Security, I also
know that, unless Pennsylvania law changes, if I were to die while still a Pennsylvania resident, the Social Security Administration would use Pennsylvanias definition of marriage and would therefore not provide Greg with access to my social security benefits, which will be larger than Gregs. If Pennsylvania recognized our marriage, Greg would receive this benefit. 8. Like Greg, when he and I die, I want our death certificates to reflect
our marriage. And, like Greg, I worry about the effect of the Pennsylvania inheritance tax on his financial wellbeing if I were to die first.
EXHIBIT PX-24
DECLARATION OF GREGORY WRIGHT I, Gregory Wright, declare as follows: 1. I am 57 years old and live in State College, Pennsylvania with my
husband Ron Gebhardtsbauer. I am a licensed acupuncturist and operate a private practice. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe why I want the Commonwealth to recognize my marriage to Ron, my partner of 19 years, and to explain how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage harms both of us. 3. Ron and I moved to State College in 2008, when Ron took a job
teaching at Penn State University. We are active members of our community and of the University Baptist & Brethren Church.
4.
When it became possible to do so in 2011, we registered as domestic
partners in State College. A true and correct copy of our domestic partnership certificate with a press photograph of the ceremony, produced in this litigation as GEBHARDTWRIGHT00006, are attached as Exhibit PX-24-A. We have long wanted to get married to publicly declare our love and commitment to each other. The term partner does not adequately convey our love for each other or the level of commitment we have made to each other. 5. I want to spend the rest of my life with Ron. He is a man of integrity,
and I am inspired by him every single day. He strives to see the best in people and makes me want to be the best I can be. 6. We had hoped to marry in State College where our friends and
community are located. The pastor of our church had agreed to officiate at our wedding if marriage in Pennsylvania became a possibility. A true and correct copy of an article from the Daily Collegian discussing our plans, produced in this litigation as GEBHARDTWRIGHT00001, is attached as Exhibit PX-24-B. 7. When the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal
Defense of Marriage Act, that meant for the first time that, if we were to marry outside of Pennsylvania, the federal government would recognize our marriage (at least for some purposes) even if Pennsylvania would not. Because we had long wanted to be recognized as married, we decided to get married outside of
Pennsylvania even though we knew that our marriage would not be recognized once we returned home. 8. On November 27, 2013, while visiting family in Maryland for
Thanksgiving, we got married in a small civil ceremony in Rockville, Maryland. A true and correct copy of our marriage license, produced in this litigation as GEBHARDTWRIGHT00008, is attached as Exhibit PX-24-C. A true and correct copy of a photograph of us at the ceremony, produced in this litigation as GEBHARDTWRIGHT00669, is attached as Exhibit PX-24-D. 9. We would have preferred to be married in our own church and with
our wider community, but because it was important to us, after 19 years together, to finally have our love and commitment officially recognized, and because Rons mother, who is 90 years old, and his sister and brother were excited to stand with us at our ceremony, we decided to get married now rather than wait for some uncertain date in the future when Pennsylvania law might change. 10. This year, because our marriage is recognized by the federal
government, we have filed joint income taxes for the first time. Unfortunately, because Pennsylvania does not recognize our marriage, we had to file our state returns separately. This means we essentially had to do our taxes twice once jointly for the federal government and once separately for Pennsylvania.
11.
In addition, when we filed our state returns, we each had to identify
ourselves as single even though we are now married. 12. Because Pennsylvania does not allow us to marry and will not
recognize our Maryland marriage, we have gone to considerable expense to have an attorney prepare wills, health care powers of attorney, and financial powers of attorney, to try to replicate some of the protections that married couples have by default. For the same reason, we own our homes as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Though these documents allow us to approximate some of the protections of marriage, there are many others we would have if we were married that the documents cannot provide. 13. I also worry that, if one of us were to have a medical emergency, we
might not have our healthcare powers of attorney available or they might not be respected. If our marriage were recognized, our relationship would simply be recognized without the need for special documentation. 14. I also worry that, when one of us dies, the other will have to pay a
15% inheritance tax on the entire estate. Again, if our marriage were recognized, we would not have this added expense. If Ron were to die first, paying the inheritance tax would create significant financial difficulties for me. 15. If Ron or I were to die in Pennsylvania, where we live, I would want
our death certificates to reflect that we are married to each other. Because
Pennsylvania does not recognize our marriage, however, I would not be listed as Ron's surviving spouse on his death certificate (or he on mine) even though we have lived together for 19 years and even though we are now married. 16. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
Executed on: April
IS: 2014
EXHIBIT PX-24-A
EXHIBIT PX-24-B
EXHIBIT PX-24-C
EXHIBIT PX-24-D
EXHIBIT PX-25
DECLARATION OF JULIA LOBUR I, Julia Lobur, declare as follows: 1. I am a 59-year-old Pennsylvania resident. I was born in Pennsylvania
and have lived in Pennsylvania almost all of my life. I have worked for the Commonwealth for more than 25 years, and I am currently employed by the Commonwealth as a software architect and project manager. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe why I want the Commonwealth to recognize my marriage to my wife, Marla Cattermole, and to explain how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage robs our relationship of the status and legitimacy accorded to others relationships.
3.
Marla and I met in 1983, during Army basic training. A true and
correct copy of a photograph of our platoon during basic training, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000255, is attached as Exhibit PX-25-A. 4. I was discharged from the Army during basic training after my sexual
orientation was revealed to my superiors. After I was discharged, I maintained correspondence with Marla, who continued to serve in the Army. In 1986, after Marla and I had started our relationship, I moved back to Pennsylvania. When Marlas term of active duty subsequently ended, she came to live with me in Harrisburg. A true and correct copy of a photograph of us in 1986, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000252, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-25-B. 5. Harrisburg has been our home since then. Early in our relationship,
Marla and I both worked and attended school, and Marla remained in the Army Reserve until 1995. A true and correct copy of a photo of Marla and me at Marlas graduation for her degree in Business Administration, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000251is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-25-C. 6. Marla and I have always taken care of each other and supported each
other. We share finances and all of our property, including our home, is jointly owned. A redacted copy of our deed, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000133, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-25-D.
7.
Marla and I also took care of my mother when it became difficult for
her physically and financially to live on her own. As my mothers health worsened, we took care of her until she passed away in 1997. She just adored Marla. I am heartsick that neither she, nor my only sister, Elizabeth, lived to see us married. 8. In 2009, Marla and I traveled to Carroll, IowaMarlas hometown
to legally marry. A redacted copy of our marriage certificate, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000001, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-25-E. A true and correct copy of a photograph from our wedding, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000249, is attached hereto as Exhibit PX-25-F. We had wanted to marry for years. We would have preferred to marry in Pennsylvania, where we lived, but we did not believe that Pennsylvania would allow us to marry any time soon. I had already lost my mother and sister. We did not want to lose other family before being married. So, we traveled to Iowa soon after it became legal to marry there because, with some of Marlas family still there, it was the closest thing to marrying at home. 9. It meant the world to me to marry Marla. As of 2009, we had been
together for 23 years and during that time we had functioned like a married couple, but had not been treated like a married couple. It was wonderful for our love and commitment to be recognized in the same way as other couples love and
commitment. Pennsylvanias non-recognition of our union continues to make me feel like a second-class citizen here at home, however. 10. Because our marriage is not recognized in Pennsylvania, we have
gone to considerable expense to have an attorney prepare wills, health care powers of attorney, and financial powers of attorney, to try to establish some of the protections that married couples have by default. Redacted copies of these documents, produced in this litigation as CATTERLOBUR000007 and 23, 17 and 33, and 10 and 26, are attached hereto as Exhibits PX-25-G, PX-25-H, and PX-25I, respectively. Even with the documents that we have, I worry that some of them might not be recognized in a time of crisis. 11. Marla and I are registered as Domestic Partners with the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for purposes of obtaining family medical leave and health insurance benefits through our employment with the Commonwealth. But we are not domestic partnerswe are spouses. Although we are married, our marriage certificate was not sufficient evidence of our relationship for purposes of establishing our domestic partnership. Instead, unlike an opposite-sex married couple, we had to prove our relationship by showing the deed to our house as evidence of joint property, our drivers licenses showing a common address, and our powers of attorney, and the paperwork had to be notarized. True and correct copies of our domestic partnership verification forms, produced in this litigation as
CATTERLOBUR000004 and 126, are attached hereto as Exhibit PX-25-J. I found this to be unfair and demeaning. 12. I want us to be able to file our Pennsylvania income taxes as the
married couple that we are. Checking the Single box feels like a lie, because we are married. Moreover, filing our taxes was particularly difficult this year. We were gratified to finally be able to file our federal income tax return jointly, as a married couple. But when our tax preparer began the state form, the software couldnt understand that we were married according to the federal form but not according to the state form. We went in endless loops for four hours that day, and it took another couple of weeks for our tax preparer to figure out how to file our Pennsylvania return. 13. If Marla or I were to die in Pennsylvania, where we live, I would want
Marlas and my respective death certificates to reflect our status as married and for the survivor to be listed as the surviving spouse on the others death certificate. I understand that, because of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage, I would not be listed as Marlas surviving spouse if she were to predecease me, and she would not be listed as my surviving spouse if I were to predecease her. This is yet another example of the Commonwealth disrespecting our relationship and our commitments to one another.
14.
Pennsylvanias non-recognition of our marriage will have a serious
financial effect when one of us dies. I understand that, if I pass away first, Marla will have to pay an inheritance tax to the Commonwealth in the amount of fifteen percent of the value of property transferred to her because the Commonwealth views us as legal strangers. If she passes away first, I will have to pay the tax. I understand from a financial advisor that our inheritance tax bill could be up to approximately $50,000. Marla and I have paid hundreds of dollars each year to carry extra life insurance to cover the inheritance tax. If our marriage were recognized by Pennsylvania, I understand that the inheritance tax rate between us would be zero. 15. The fact that we have to fight for recognition of our marriage means
that we can give fewer of our resources to other worthy causes. Rather than sign petitions and send letters to lawmakers about marriage equality, we have opened our checkbooks and given to the cause of marriage equality consistently for twenty years. Every time I wrote one of those checks, I wanted to cry, because that was additional money that I could then not afford to give to the food banks or rescue missions or humane organizations. 16. When Marla and I travel, we enjoy visiting places that recognize our
marriage. For example, we recently visited the state of Washington where our marriage was recognized by entities as mundane as the car rental company. Marla
and I werejust simply both ableto drivethe rentalcar-no extrafees,no extra paperwork.Whenour marriage is acknowledged like that when we travel,I feel joyful and free. I feel the lossof that freedom everytime I returnhometo Pennsylvania. 17. I makethis declaration from my own knowledge of the factsand
circumstances set folth above. If necessary, I could andwould testiflz to thesefacts andcircumstances. I declare underpenaltyof perjurythat the foregoingis true and correct.
Executed on; Ap r,-r,, i 1i, 2t i t l
(/
4-
tt,.
-'-'
/'
JuliaLobur
EXHIBIT PX-25-A
EXHIBIT PX-25-B
EXHIBIT PX-25-C
EXHIBIT PX-25-D
EXHIBIT PX-25-E
EXHIBIT PX-25-F
EXHIBIT PX-25-G
EXHIBIT PX-25-H
EXHIBIT PX-25-I
EXHIBIT PX-25-J
EXHIBIT PX-26
DECLARATION OF MARLA CATTERMOLE I, Marla Cattermole, declare as follows: 1. I am 55 years old, a Pennsylvania resident, and a senior benefits
manager for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I currently work for the Public School Employees Retirement System. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. I have lived in Harrisburg with Julia Lobur since 1986. Julia and I
married in my hometown of Carroll, Iowa in 2009. I want our marriage to be recognized in Pennsylvania.
4.
I have reviewed the Declaration of Julia Lobur, which was also made
in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Julias statements in her declaration. 5. I agree that Pennsylvanias non-recognition of our marriage
disrespects and devalues my love for Julia and the commitment that I have made to her. 6. In addition, I want to emphasize that Pennsylvanias non-recognition
of our marriage caused us undue frustration, stress, and added cost in obtaining the domestic partnership benefits available to state employees. To obtain family medical leave and to put Julia on my health benefits, we could not just produce our marriage certificate. Instead, we had to produce substantial documentation proving our relationship. Similar benefits are afforded to married opposite-sex couples without having to jump through hoops. Not only did the process of obtaining these benefits make me feel like a second-class citizen, it also made me feel that I am not valued or trusted as a Commonwealth employee. 7. Like Julia, I want to be able to declare myself as Married on my
Pennsylvania income tax return. I am married to Julia, so checking the Single box feels wrong.
EXHIBIT PX-27
DECLARATION OF SANDRA FERLANIE I, Sandra Ferlanie, declare as follows: 1. I am 46 years old, a Pennsylvania resident, and a trained nurse
working on drug safety for Merck. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal allow me to marry Christine relegates us and our five-year-old son H. F. to second-class citizenship. 3. I have been in a relationship with Christine Donato for 17 years.
Christine and I, together with our son H.F., live in Swarthmore. Christine and I want to marry and publicly declare our love for each other but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bars us from marrying.
4.
I have reviewed the Declaration of Christine Donato, which was also
made in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. That declaration is accurate, and I agree with Christines statements in her declaration. 5. I agree that Pennsylvanias refusal to allow me to marry Christine
disrespects and devalues our relationship and our family and makes us and our son second-class citizens. 6. Like Christine, I feel that the second-parent adoption process that we
were required to go through so that Christines parental rights to H. F. would be recognized was humiliating. 7. Like Christine I worry whether, in a medical emergency, especially if
we did not have our health care powers of attorney with us, each of us would be allowed to receive health care information and make medical decisions for the other. 8. Like Christine, I worry about the effect of the Pennsylvania
inheritance tax on the survivors financial well-being if one of us were to die. 9. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: April/tl, 2014
Sandra Ferlanie
~~
EXHIBIT PX-28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE DONATO I, Christine Donato, declare as follows: 1. I am 45 years old and am a lifetime Pennsylvania resident. I operate a
business, TITANIUM40, which offers communications consulting to pharmaceutical companies that are preparing to launch new products. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe why I want the Commonwealth to allow me to marry my partner of 17 years, Sandy Ferlanie, and to explain how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to issue allow us to marry relegates us and our five-year-old son H.F. to second-class citizenship. 3. Sandy and I decided to make our home in Swarthmore so that we
could be close to our families and because we found there a community that was
accepting of our family. We love being able to celebrate special occasions in our home with our loved ones. A true and correct copy of a photograph of a Christmas dinner with my parents, Sandys parents, Sandys brother, and Sandys aunt, produced in this litigation as DONATOFERLANIE000473, is attached as Exhibit PX-28-A. 4. I have dreamed of being married since I was a child and it would
mean a great deal to our parents and the rest of our families to be able to share in our wedding. Sandy and I want to declare our love for each other before God and before our family and friends. We also want to make a public commitment to each other. 5. Getting married would also mean that our son H.F. will no longer
need to feel that his family is different because his parents are not married. H.F. is now old enough that he has begun to ask questions about why we are not married and we have had to explain to him that we are not allowed to get married. I worry that this may make him feel that his family is somehow inferior to other families. 6. We would like to be married in Pennsylvania, where we have lived
our whole lives, and where our family and friends are. Our parents are elderly and travel is difficult for them, and we hope to get married while they are all still alive and near enough to home that they can share the occasion with us. We attend Trinity Episcopal Church of Swarthmore and would like to be married there with
our close-knit community of friends and family. The church is very supportive of us and wishes to bless our relationship. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, however, has refused to issue us a marriage license. 7. On November 6, 2013, Sandy and I went to the office of the Register
of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court in Bucks County to apply for a marriage license. A clerk there helped us to fill out the application form and took our $60 license fee. She then explained that we did not meet the qualifications for marriage in Pennsylvania. A redacted copy of our license application and receipt, produced in this litigation as DONATOFERLANIE000251, is attached as Exhibit P-28-B. 8. Because H. F. is Sandys biological child and not mine, I had no
parental rights until we completed a second-parent adoption process. When he was born, H.s birth certificate listed only a single parent. A redacted copy of H.F.s original birth certificate, produced in this litigation as DONATOFERLANIE000348, is attached as Exhibit P-28-C. If Sandy and I had been able to marry, I would have been recognized as H.F.s parent as soon as he was born. 9. Until the second-parent adoption process was completed, I worried
that, if anything happened to Sandy, my relationship with H.F. would not be recognized.
10.
The second-parent adoption process was long, expensive, and
humiliating. In addition to paying our attorney, we had to pay to have a social worker come to our house to interview us, we had to be fingerprinted, we had to have medical tests, and we had to get letters of recommendation. If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had allowed us to get married, we would not have had to do any of those things. 11. Only after the completion of that process was H.F.s birth certificate
amended to list me as a parent. A redacted copy of H.F.s amended birth certificate, produced in this litigation as DONATOFERLANIE000309, is attached as Exhibit P-28-D. Although H.F. was my son from the day he was born, because Sandy and I were unable to marry, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not recognize that fact until a judge entered the adoption decree. A redacted copy of the adoption decree, produced in this litigation as DONATOFERLANIE000307, is attached as Exhibit P-28-E. A true and correct copy of a photograph of our family, taken with the judge who entered the adoption decree, produced in this litigation as DONATOFERLANIE000468, is attached as Exhibit P-28-F. 12. Because Pennsylvania does not allow us to marry, we have gone to
considerable expense to have an attorney prepare wills, health care powers of attorney, and financial powers of attorney, to try to replicate some of the
protections that married couples have by default. For the same reason, we own our homes as joint tenants with right of survivorship. 13. Though these documents allow us to approximate some of the
protections of marriage, we know that there are many additional protections we would have if we were married that the documents cannot provide. And I worry that, in a time of crisis, the documents might not be recognized. 14. Last year, Sandy was diagnosed with a life-threatening breast cancer.
Although we gave copies of Sandys health care power of attorney to the hospital, I was aware of situations where hospital staff had not recognized similar documents for same-sex couples. While she was being treated, including while she was in surgery for nine hours, I worried that, because Pennsylvania did not allow us to marry, I might be precluded from making decisions for Sandy even though I had the proper documentation. If our paperwork were not to be recognized, we could file a legal action after the fact, but if in the meantime I were prevented from receiving information about Sandys condition or making decisions on her behalf, the power of attorney would do us no good. 15. In addition, I worry about what will happen in a medical emergency if
Sandy and I do not have the proper paperwork with us. If we were married, our relationship would simply be recognized without the need for special documentation.
16.
I also worry that, when one of us dies, the other will have to pay a
150/0 inheritance tax on the entire estate. If we were able to be married, we would
not have this added expense. 17. I make this declaration from my own knowledge of the facts and
Executed on: April/i..., 2014
EXHIBIT PX-28-A
1-JEJ Document 115-12 Filed 04/21
EXHIBIT PX-28-B
EXHIBIT PX-28-C
EXHIBIT PX-28-D
EXHIBIT PX-28-E
EXHIBIT PX-28-F
EXHIBIT PX-29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WHITEWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. WOLF et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF MAUREEN HENNESSEY I, Maureen Hennessey, declare as follows: 1. 2. I am 53 years old, and a Pennsylvania resident. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ
Judgment in the matter of Whitewood et al. v. Wolf et al. to briefly describe the importance of marriage to me and how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize my marriage is stigmatizing and hurtful. 3. My wife, Mary Beth McIntyre, and I were both born and raised in
Philadelphia. 4. Mary Beth and I lived together for 29 years, from 1984 until Mary
Beths death on May 18, 2013 at the age of 55. (True and correct copies of photographs of Mary Beth and me together over the years, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000160, HENNESSEY000163, and
HENNESSEY000164, are attached as Exhibits PX-29-A, PX-29-B, and PX-29-C, respectively.) 5. Mary Beth and I raised 3 children together: my son from a previous
relationship, and Mary Beths niece and nephew, whose mother died when they were young, although Mary Beth never formally adopted any of them. (A true and correct copy of a photograph of Mary Beth, me, my son Shawn, and Mary Beths niece Kerry, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000161, is attached as Exhibit PX-29-D.) When Mary Beth died, we had three grandchildren. A fourth was born shortly after she passed away. 6. In August 2009, Mary Beth was diagnosed with inoperable Stage 4
lung cancer that had spread to her brain and bones. After Mary Beth fell ill, I left my job as a substitute teacher in the Philadelphia School District to care for Mary Beth and to help Mary Beth run her business, which was the familys primary source of income. 7. Mary Beth and I married in Provincetown, Massachusetts on June 9,
2011. (A redacted copy of our Certificate of Marriage, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000003, is attached as PX-29-E.) We would have preferred to marry in our home state of Pennsylvania where our loved ones and friends live, and we would have loved to solemnize our marriage at Germantown Friends Meeting in our neighborhood. But getting married in Pennsylvania was not an
option, and we knew our time together was too limited to try to wait for that change to come. (A true and correct copy of a photograph of Mary Beth and me taken in Provincetown on our wedding day, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000165, is attached as Exhibit PX-29-F.) 8. While Mary Beth was suffering the physical and emotional pain of
end stage cancer, she had the additional burden of worrying about how I would manage financially after she was gone. (A true and correct copy of a video with interviews of Mary Beth and me and our family taped in May 2013, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000166, is attached as Exhibit PX-29-G.) 9. We realized that, when Mary Beth died, her property would not pass
automatically to me, since Pennsylvania does not recognize our marriage. So Mary Beth went to an attorney in our neighborhood and paid to have a will drawn up to try to effectuate her desire to leave all of her possessions to me. (A redacted version of Mary Beths will, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000001 02, is attached as Exhibit PX-29-H.) But there was nothing an attorney could do to establish most of the legal protections that are available to widows and widowers. 10. As Mary Beths cancer got worse, she needed my help to get in and
out of bed and to the bathroom. I helped bathe her and administered her medications. Because Mary Beth had difficulty chewing and swallowing, I made foods that were easy to swallow and helped feed her.
11.
The fact that our marriage isnt recognized in Pennsylvania made it
much harder to advocate for Mary Beth during her illness. As the tumors spread through Mary Beths brain, it became more difficult for her to speak, and her speech difficulties embarrassed her. So I made a lot of phone calls on Mary Beths behalf to insurance companies, doctors, and hospice workers to make sure she was getting the care she needed. With every call I had to explain our relationship. Since Pennsylvania treats Mary Beth and me as legal strangers, I was at the mercy of the person on the other end of the phone. I worried with every phone call that I would be told I had no right to speak for Mary Beth. I had to keep lists of which individuals at various companies recognized me as Mary Beths spouse and would talk to me. If Pennsylvania recognized our marriage, it would have been much easier to protect Mary Beth before she died. 12. Before Mary Beth passed away, we made arrangements for her
funeral and burial. Mary Beth told the undertaker that she wanted it noted on her death certificate that we were married, and wanted me listed as her surviving spouse. He explained to us that we wouldnt be able to do that because Pennsylvania doesnt recognize me as Mary Beths wife. 13. This upset Mary Beth a lot. But Im not sure she was as upset as I
was after she passed when I got to hold that death certificate and see that there was a space for me, but I cant go in it. Mary Beths death certificate listed her as
never married, and the surviving spouse part of the form was left blank. I was listed as the informant. (A redacted copy of Mary Beths death certificate, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000135, is attached as Exhibit PX-29I.) I shouldnt be listed as the informant. That sounds like a person who made a telephone call. I want to be recognized as Mary Beths surviving spouse. And I wantjust as she wantedher death certificate to acknowledge that, at the time she passed, she was married. Pennsylvanias refusal to recognize our marriage disrespects the commitment that Mary Beth and I made to one another and devalues our 29-year relationship and our family. 14. Because Pennsylvania treats Mary Beth and me as legal strangers, in
February 2014, I paid an inheritance tax of 15% on the property that Mary Beth left to me. (A redacted copy of the inheritance tax return, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000167240, and the check paying the inheritance tax, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000241, are attached as Exhibits PX29-J and PX-29-K, respectively.) I was even taxed on assets we owned together, including half of our joint bank accounts and half the value of the home we bought together and shared together and owned as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. (A redacted copy of the deed to our house, produced in this litigation as HENNESSEY000099, is attached as Exhibit PX-29-L.) I had to use a substantial amount of Mary Beths life insurance and retirement savings to pay the
EXHIBIT PX-29-A
EXHIBIT PX-29-B
EXHIBIT PX-29-C
13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-13 Filed 04/21/14 Page
EXHIBIT PX-29-D
1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-13 Filed 04/21/14 Page 15
EXHIBIT PX-29-E
EXHIBIT PX-29-F
cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-13 Filed 04/21/14 Pag
EXHIBIT PX-29-G
VIDEO FILED WITH COURT
EXHIBIT PX-29-H
EXHIBIT PX-29-I
EXHIBIT PX-29-J
EXHIBIT PX-29-K
EXHIBIT PX-29-L
EXHIBIT PX-30
EXHIBIT PX-30-A
EXHIBIT PX-31
~T THE UN~~'ED STATES DISTRrG`~ COUR'~ FO~.t 'TIC N~I,DI):I ~~ !: DIS~ItICT OF PENNSYLV,t~TiA W~'~'E'V~TOI~D et al., P~~~ ~t~f~s, ~~~ WOLF et al., Def~ ~ndants. Czvi~ Action No. 13-1$6~,-JEJ
DECLAR;~;COON O~ VERONICA DON.l~.T4 I, Veronica Donato ; d'-~a,~ iare as follows: 1. I am 76 years a~ lc~ and a lifetime Pennsylvax~~a resident. 1 have been
married to ax~y husband, F'ra~r ~ Donato,for ~1 yeas and have two cbi.~d~en. I have been a very :active mexube~ s:~f'~.e Catholic church for ~aay emtire life. 2. My daughter, C:~~ -istine Aona~o, and her partner, Sandra Ferlanie, are
plain~if~s in ~ he matter of ~~ ~ i7 ~ewood et al. v, Wolfet al. azzd ~ submit this ~m t~aat action. declaration ~m support ofPlay i~ tiffs' Motion for Summary ~~~~~~~~~~~ 3. Family is vex~r i sac.portant to us. We are very close with Sandy and
wi.~a Sandy'; paren.~ts. We c.;I~ ~brate holidays and special occasions wi~i Christine and Sandy a~~.d, when we c~~~, with Sandy's anLil~ as we~~. Sa~.dy's fa~.ly is our family. Eve:n though Christina;and Sandy have noti been able to n~.a~ryy I think of Sandy as my~ daughter~u~-la~~ ~d thax is how I in~.roduce b:e~ to my friends.
4.
Since Chrisl~ae ~~as born,I have hooked foxward to the day that she
would settle dawn cud have ~1;~ldre~ of her owe. T was delighted when C1~ristin~ and Sandy st~~d their relate o~,a.ship and even mote delighted when theix son,~.F., was born: 5. Sandy a:~d Chrii sir ine love each axed they have a son together, but
1'ennsylvani,~. haw forbids th~E;~u c fro~a gettiu~ maxx~ed. 11~arriage is a. fo~nda~ion for family, anal is a public state:3~s;nt to everyone tba~ the couple has made a eomznit~.e~l.to one anot~.er~ ]I 3ut Cstine and Sandy are not allowed to ma~Ce ~ha.~t
statement. 6. ~ dream ofseei;~ l~r ~ Chrisrine and Sandy matxied one day and I want to
be there when it happens. ~l e~;ause of my age and xny health, ho~c1vever, I worry tha~t9 UI1~~551~1e ~a.W ].Xi P~7ltlay .va~ia changes soon,~ wi.~1 not b~ abbe to shape Christine and Sand's wed.~l ire g dad with them. 7, Abouttwenty y ~~ Rrs ago, T was dia.~aosed with multiple scxerosis. r
aa~. now con Fined to a wheel cll pair because ~ am paralyzes firom tb~e waist down and suer ~fi-om ultiple otiaer d~,~~ilitati~.g symptoua.s. I have also deveXo~ed sevexal comorbid~ti~,s, inc~ud~ing di.~b~;tes. 8, I have frequenl:ly been in and out of hospitals and nursing homes over
the last five years and am a~ to t~ bedridden fog days at a time. Drawing on ~~~~
nu~s~ng back pound,Sandy :I~,7s been very active iu~ helping nae to deal w%t~ my medical condition. 9. Because o~ my ~~: ~nclitzon, trave~:iaug is very c~i~.xcult for me. We have
a specially-c~nvezted van fa:- 7 ny wb~~lc~air that allows me to get to medical appointments. But if C~.ris~i r~~~;and Sandy were to decide to marry outside of Pennsylvani;~, my hea~t~. w~ a:~ d likely prevent me ~xo~m. ~rave~ing to attend their w~ddix~.g. 10. I hope that some e day soon ~ will be abbe to see Christine and Sandy
married ~.~ront oftheir ~a~nrn ilw~ r a~ad friends and in them own c~u~rGh commwuty in Swarthmore . T}~t is what I vv ~az~t for Christine, Sandy, and ~. F. C~inistine and Sandy d~s~rv~e all the sights a~'a~ay ether married eoupXe. 11. ~ ~:ake this dec al ration :&om. my own ~owledge ofthe facts and
circumstauc~~s set forth abo~~ ~, ~f'~~cessary, T could and wou}.d testify to these facts and circums,aances, I dee~~r~ under pema~~ y Qf perjury that the foregoing i~ true and correct.
Executed,on: April.~20~~ ~
Veronica Donato

1:13-cv-01861 #115.attachments Part 1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1:13-cv-01861 #115.attachments Part 1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 2 of 408

Civil Action No. 13-1861-JEJ

EXPERT REPORT OF M. V. LEE BADGETT, PH.D.

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 3 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 4 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 5 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 6 of 408

I have reviewed the responses by defendants to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories,

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 7 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 8 of 408

Brief Summary of Economic Principles of Marriage.

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 9 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 10 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 11 of 408

Additional findings about same-sex couples living in Pennsylvania are available

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 12 of 408

sex couples are deprived of in the state of Pennsylvania.

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 13 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 14 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 15 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 16 of 408

Creating these legal documents, which at best create an incomplete patchwork of

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 17 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 18 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 19 of 408

Members of same-sex couples in Pennsylvaniaeven if married in another state

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 20 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 21 of 408

To assess the amount of wedding-related tax revenue lost by the Commonwealth of

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 22 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 23 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 24 of 408

Higher Costs For Health Care of Uninsured Same-Sex Partners.

As noted earlier, the number of uninsured Pennsylvanians is higher than it would be

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 25 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 26 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 27 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 28 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 29 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 30 of 408

I do not address in this report whether it is legal or proper for a government to

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 31 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 32 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 33 of 408

Pennsylvanias Asserted Economic Impacts.

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 34 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 35 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 36 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 37 of 408

2014. Executed on February~,

BY: ~~_ v~ .D~~f WAX 11~.V. Lee Badgett, P~Z.D

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 38 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 40 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 41 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 42 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 43 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 44 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 45 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 46 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 47 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 48 of 408

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 49 of 408