In a February 28 “Speakout” guest editorial in the Rocky Mountain News, James Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, claimed he received a “bum rap” in being accused of “twisting the writings of certain academics and of quoting their research findings out of context” in attacking same-sex parenting. Yet in the editorial, Dobson further distorted the work of the critic he cited: Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale School of Medicine, who has accused Dobson of “cherry-picking” and misusing his research. While Dobson claimed in his editorial that “Pruett's entire book proclaims the significance of fathering in the well-being of children,” he omitted the fact that Pruett's book also claims, "[T]here is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex."

Dobson also ignored -- as he has in the past -- the findings of an American Psychological Association (APA) meta-study of lesbian and gay parenting that concluded there are no studies that have found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be “disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

In a December 12, 2006, guest column in Time magazine entitled, “Two Mommies Is One Too Many,” Dobson wrote: "[T]he majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." Dobson further wrote:

The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.”

Claiming that he had “been accused of twisting the writings of certain academics and of quoting their research findings out of context” for his Time column, Dobson addressed Pruett once again in his February 28 News editorial:

One of the professors, Dr. Kyle Pruett at Yale Medical School, complained that I “cherry-picked” a four-word quote (“fathers do not mother”) from his book, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. It was a strange complaint. Pruett's entire book proclaims the significance of fathering in the well-being of children. The phrase to which I referred actually serves as the title of Pruett's first chapter. The second chapter is titled, “The Dad Difference in Child Development.” The final paragraph in Fatherneed states, “Men are the single greatest untapped resource in the lives of American children. Natural, renewable, and by and largely nontoxic, they couldn't be healthier for the country's children. We can't afford to let another one get away.”

That is precisely the point I made in my Time commentary. The benefits of a child being raised by a married mother and a father have been established in the professional literature for decades. It was not even questioned until the gay rights movement succeeded in making that understanding politically incorrect. So I ask now, in what sense did I misquote Pruett or apply his writings out of context? Is he now changing his position and claiming that fathers are not critical to healthy child development? Apparently so, but that is not what he wrote.

While Pruett does apparently stress the unique contributions offered by a father in the child-rearing process, he also explicitly states on page 134 of his book that “there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers” -- a quote conspicuously absent from Dobson's editorial. Dobson himself previously highlighted Pruett's statement in a January letter to Focus on the Family readers:

The debate continued hot and heavy. Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale School of Medicine, wrote me to complain about my quoting from his book. He said:

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”

Kyle Pruett, M.D., Yale School of Medicine

In addition to further distorting Pruett's work, Dobson ignored the 2005 APA study that concluded "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Contrary to Dobson's claim that "[c]hildren need both a mother and a father," the APA study also found that “the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.” Moreover, according to the APA:

Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends -- both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.

As Media Matters for America and Colorado Media Matters have noted, another expert, psychologist Carol Gilligan, also has accused Dobson of misusing her research to argue that same-sex parenting is harmful to children.

From James Dobson's February 28 Rocky Mountain News “Speakout” editorial, “Children need both a mother and a father”:

I've been accused of twisting the writings of certain academics and of quoting their research findings out of context. It is a bum rap. Typically I ignore such criticism, but in this case a response is warranted.

One of the professors, Dr. Kyle Pruett at Yale Medical School, complained that I “cherry-picked” a four-word quote (“fathers do not mother”) from his book, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. It was a strange complaint. Pruett's entire book proclaims the significance of fathering in the well-being of children. The phrase to which I referred actually serves as the title of Pruett's first chapter. The second chapter is titled, “The Dad Difference in Child Development.” The final paragraph in Fatherneed states, “Men are the single greatest untapped resource in the lives of American children. Natural, renewable, and by and largely nontoxic, they couldn't be healthier for the country's children. We can't afford to let another one get away.”

That is precisely the point I made in my Time commentary. The benefits of a child being raised by a married mother and a father have been established in the professional literature for decades. It was not even questioned until the gay rights movement succeeded in making that understanding politically incorrect. So I ask now, in what sense did I misquote Pruett or apply his writings out of context? Is he now changing his position and claiming that fathers are not critical to healthy child development? Apparently so, but that is not what he wrote.

Particularly absurd was Pruett's insistence that I never quote him again. Since when does a researcher or author have the right to determine how his or her work will be referenced? As a former academic myself, I've never seen anyone try to enforce that restriction. Has Pruett ever heard of the doctrine of “fair use?”

This flap leads us to ask why the professor reacted with such irritation to a minuscule four-word quote? My assumption is that he didn't want to be identified, even remotely, with the defense of traditional marriage. That is the kiss of death in academic circles today.