3:09-cv-02292 #286

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document286 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 3
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
2 tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
3 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
4 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
5 Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
6 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7804, Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies, pro hac vice
8 dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504
9 Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888
10 jgoldman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612
11 Telephone: (510) 874-1000, Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
13 Dennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669
Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930
14 Danny Chou, SBN 180240
15 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
16 Telephone: (415) 554-4708, Facsimile (415) 554-4699
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
17 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
20 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF REBECCA JUSTICE
21 and LAZARUS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
22 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE
Plaintiff-Intervenor, EXPERT REPORTS, OPINIONS, AND
23 TESTIMONY OF KATHERINE YOUNG,
v.
LOREN MARKS AND DAVID
24 BLANKENHORN
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
25 Defendants,
and
26
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
27 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
28
1
Gibson, Dunn & 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF REBECCA JUSTICE LAZARUS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ AND
Crutcher LLP
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED EXPERTS YOUNG, MARKS, AND
BLANKENHORN
1 I, Rebecca Justice Lazars, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and in the Northern
3 District of California. I am an associate in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel of
4 record for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perr, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J.
5 Zarilo(collectively, "Plaintiffs") in the above-captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the
6 facts stated herein and could and would testify competently thereto if called upon to do so.
7 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts from the
8 certified transcript of the deposition of Dr. Katherine Young, taken on November 13,2009.
9 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts from the
10 certified transcript of the deposition of Dr. Loren Marks, taken on October 30, 2009.
i
11 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts from the
12 certified transcript of the deposition of David Blanenhorn, taken on November 3, 2009.
13 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the expert report of Dr.
14 Katherine Young ("Declaration of Katherine Young, PhD., as Expert Witness for Defendant"), dated
15 October 2,2009.
16 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the expert report of Dr.
17 Loren Marks ("Declaration of Loren Marks, as expert witness for Defendant-Intervenors"), dated
18 October 2,2009.
19 7. Attched hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the expert report of David
20 Blanenhorn ("Declaration of David Blanenhorn as Expert Witness for Defendant").
21 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a copy of the Iowa District Cour for Polk County's
22 Ruling on Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Motion for Sumar Judgment, filed August 30,2007.
23 I declare, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that these facts are
24 true and correct and that this Declaration is executed this 7th day of December 2009 at San Francisco,
25 California.
26
27
28
2
Gibson, Dunn & 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF REBECCA JUSTICE LAZARUS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND
Crutcher LLP
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PROPOSED EXPERTS YOUNG, MARKS, AND
BLANKNHORN
1 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45
2 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that
3 concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this
4 document.
5 By: /s/
Theodore B. Olson
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher LLP
09-CV-2292 VRW ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document286-1 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 111
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document286-2 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 85
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PERRY, et al.,
v. CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al. DECLARATION OF

KATHERINE YOUNG, PhD. ,
AS EXPERT WITNESS FOR
DEFENDANT
I, Katherine Young, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of majority. I make this declaration based upon my
personal knowledge and I am competent to testify to the contents herein.
2. I make this declaration as an expert witness on behalf of the Defendant-
Intervenors. .
Introduction
3. The purpose of this declaration is to provide my evidence, as an expert in

1
comparative religion, on what universally constitutes marriage and why. From my study
of world religions (such as Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity)
and the worldviews of small-scale societies. I conclude that marriage has not one but five
1
This discussion draws on Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “Redefining
Marriage or Deconstructing Society: a Canadian Case Study.” Journal of Family Studies
(Australia). Vol 13 issue 2 ((November 2007), 133-178; Katherine K. Young, “The
Institution of Marriage: Mediation of Nature and Culture in Cross-Cultural Perspective.”
Chapter for a volume entitled The Conjugal Bond: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the
Institution of Marriage edited by Daniel Cere [under review]. Katherine K. Young and
Paul Nathanson, “The Future of an Experiment” in Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the
Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiment, ed. Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004).
1
universal functions: (1) complementing nature with culture; (2) providing children with at
least one parent of each sex whenever possible; (3) providing them with their biological
parents whenever possible; (4) bringing men and women together for both practical and
symbolic purposes; and (5) providing men with a stake in the family and society.
4. From my comparative study of the worldviews of major cultures and
religions and the worldviews of small-scale societies I have also concluded that the
following features of marriage are universal. Marriage is supported by authority and
incentives; it recognizes the interdependence of maleness and femaleness; it has a public
dimension; it defines eligible partners; it encourages procreation under specific
conditions; it provides mutual support not only between men and women but also
between men and women and their children (the sharing of resources, apart from
anything else, or transmission of property), and it emphasizes durable parental
relationships (at least until the children reach maturity; because of the long time that it
takes for infants to mature, cooperation is necessary to ensure their survival).
5. The following features of marriage are nearly universal: mutual affection
and companionship; family (or political) alliances; and the intergenerational cycle
(reciprocity between young and old).
6. These universal and nearly features assume the distinctive contributions of
both sexes, transmit knowledge from one generation to another, and create not only
“vertical” links between the generations but also “horizontal” ones between allied
families or communities.
7. Any particular culture's definition of marriage will contain not only
universal and nearly universal features but also variable features. Religious worldviews
and symbol systems change according to these variables. From one perspective, the
variables will make every culture's definition of marriage distinctive. But from a cross-
2
cultural perspective, universal and nearly universal features can be discerned.
2
It could be argued that focusing on the universal or nearly universal features would
lead to the methodological problem of essentialism. But that is a false problem for three
reasons. First, there really is an empirical basis for these features. Second, using inductive
reason to discern patterns is a fundamental characteristic of scholarship. And third, any
2
8. Same-sex relationships are indeed worthy of respect. But “same-sex

marriage” is an oxymoron, because it lacks the five defining features of marriage
according to religious, historical, and anthropological evidence.
My qualifications
9. As a full professor in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill

3
University and with the university distinction of James McGill Professor, I have
expertise in comparative religion (also known as the history and phenomenology of
religions) in general and on Hinduism in particular. The assumption of the comparative
approach is that one must have in-depth historical and linguistic expertise in one area;
because my study of Hinduism is focused on Srivaisnavism and the merger of north
Indian and south Indian cultures between the first century BCE and fifteenth century CE,
I have studied Sanskrit, Tamil, and Telugu. However, the field of comparative religion
acknowledges that to know one religion, alone, is to know none. True understanding
comes not only from knowing one religion in its historical perspective but also from
knowing what makes it similar and different from other religions—and what is true about
religion in general. For many years, I have taught introductory courses in world religions.
Teaching has helped further my knowledge of religions other than Hinduism, and I
continually draw on this knowledge to detect patterns on which generalizations are based.
Furthermore, my scholarship frequently draws upon anthropology so that my knowledge
of religions extends to small-scale societies and those based on oral traditions.
10. Comparative religion is an empirical and social scientific approach to
religion, not a theological or faith-based one. The German title of the field is
Religionswissenschaft, often translated into English as the “scientific study of religion.”
In France, it is known as sciences réligieuses. My initial training in comparative religion,
phenomenon so common as to be universal or nearly universal surely reveals something

basic in human nature.
3
This is an honor with a major research stipend for seven years made by the
university to recognize its most productive and internationally well-known researchers. It
is the internal equivalent of a Canada Research Chair Tier One.
3
in the late 1960s at the University of Chicago, was under Mircea Eliade. He was most
famous (and probably still is) for his comparative approach. Although I learned much
from his comparative method, I have refined it by drawing on the approach of cultural
anthropology. The latter pays more attention than Eliade did to patterns determined by
social, economic, and political organization. I draw on the anthropological methods of
Bruce Trigger, for instance, who defends the cross-cultural approach against the
4
postmodern vogue of “particularism” in his study of early civilizations.
11. As interest in women and religion grew in the 1970s, so did interest in
what were general problems for women in other cultures. It has been my privilege to
write the introductions to several books that have chapters written by experts on women
in Hinduism (some of them my chapters), Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism,
Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, African religions, Native American religions, Shinto, and
Zoroastrianism. My scholarly task in writing these introductions has been to compare
these chapters by other experts and, drawing on my own criteria of expertise, to detect
similarities and differences. In doing so, I have helped sort out the conflicting claims
being made by feminists and others about gender and religion. These introductions are
found in the following books, edited by Arvind Sharma: Women and World Religions
(1987), Today's Woman in World Religions (1993), Religion and Women (1994),
Feminism and World Religions (as joint editor, 1999), Women Saints in World Religions
(2000), Methodologies in Religious Studies: The Interface with Women's Studies (2002),
and (as joint editor) Her Voice, Her Faith (2003). Women and World Religions has been
used as a textbook for courses in religion throughout Canada and the United States.
Feminism and World Religions was selected by Choice as a book of excellence in
January 2000. In the last few years, I have written over twenty articles on women and
religion, which are being published in encyclopedias by well-known presses such as
Routledge, Brill, and Oxford.
12. The study of gender and religion could not be complete without a study of
men. I have been working with a colleague, Dr. Paul Nathanson, and together, we have
4
Bruce G. Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), at 22, 647-683.
4
written three books on gender and men: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt
for Men in Popular Culture (McGill-Queen's Press, 2001); Legalizing Misandry: from
Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men (2006); and Transcending
Misandry: The Road to Intersexual Dialogue (forthcoming 2010). These volumes
identify the universal and particular aspects of masculinity, show how gender identity is
formed, and assess the ethical implications of current ideological claims about men. They
continue my comparative interests in gender but move them, through scholarly
collaboration, to a more contemporary focus. We document patterns in American and
Canadian culture, evaluating them from comparative and ethical perspectives. In
addition, we have completed a book manuscript called Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess
Ideology and the Fall of Man (McGill-Queen’s University Press (forthcoming Fall
2009)..
13. My third area of interest, developed over the past fifteen years, has been
comparative ethics in general and Hindu ethics in particular. I am a member of the
McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. I have sat for five years on a national
5
advisory body dealing with ethical problems in research. In addition, I have published
my research on various ethical problems: violence, biotechnology, euthanasia, status of
the fetus, and so on.
14. My interests in religion, gender, and ethics have led me to study
reproduction and marriage through not only historical studies but also contemporary
ones. Working again as a team, Dr. Nathanson and I have conducted research specifically
on reproduction and families. This project was funded by the Donner Canadian
Foundation ($200,000 between 1988 and 1992 for “New Reproductive Technologies and
the Family” (of the Family and Law Program at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics,
and Law). We brought a comparative approach to this topic by showing how three
modern worldviews influence the ethics and politics of reproductive technologies: those
of the libertarians; feminists who advocate reproductive power and autonomy for women;
and natural law. For this project, in addition, we examined the positions of Canadian
5
National Research Council of Canada, Human Subjects Research Ethics Committee
(1992-1996).
5
religious groups and their contributions to the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies. Because we worked on this project and the one on men at the same time,
we paid special attention to the ways in which reproductive technologies might affect
men both actually and symbolically. These research projects inform my expertise,
illustrated in this declaration, on the ways in which men’s identity might be affected by
6
major changes to the laws governing marriage.
15. My research on new reproductive technologies has also led me to think
about how they might affect children’s identities in a society that considers the biological
component of parenting, having a parent of each sex, no longer essential.
16. At McGill's Faculty of Religious Studies, I have taught the honor’s
colloquium focused on religion, pluralism, and human rights. Again, I have used a
comparative focus to see how world religions deal with diversity, tolerance, and
minorities. Teaching has helped me to consider the current demand for same-sex
7
marriage in relation to minority status and discrimination.
17. At McGill, I have also taught the core BA course called Theories of
Religion, which examines the various methods of the social sciences and humanities that
produced these theories. My interest in method has led me to examine the debate over
flaws in the research protocols of those scholars who claim that we have empirical proof
that same-sex marriage does not harm children.
18. My comparative studies over the past thirty years have led me to take a
new direction. I have worked with a team of scholars from several disciplines (law, health
sciences, and ethics) to develop ways of integrating expertise to solve major social
problems. This builds on my training in comparative religion and in the interdisciplinary
6
Work in Progress: Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Three Views on
Assisted Reproduction: A Comparative Perspective.
7
For examples, see: David E. Gunn, Chris Barrigar, and Katherine K. Young, eds.,
Religion and Law in the Global Village (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000); Katherine K.
Young and Paul Nathanson, Interfaith Etiquette in a Multireligious Society, in TOWARDS
A CODE OF ETHICS: INTERFAITH DIMENSIONS OF CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM (Abdul
Lodhi et al. eds. 1990).
.
6
study of a region (South Asia) but also on my interests in ethics and public policy. This
new but still evolving approach is called “transdisciplinarity”. In my understanding, it
takes comparative and interdisciplinary studies a step further by using them for practical
purposes. I was invited to present my approach at a colloquium near Paris, sponsored by
the EOLSS Foundation and the UNESCO Division of Philosophy and Ethics; the
8
proceedings were published in 2000. The use of expertise in several areas, required for
problem-solving and decision-making in court cases about redefining marriage, is an
example of transdisciplinarity at work. This is in line with the cutting-edge methods of
research-intensive universities. They recognize that narrow specializations must become
synergetic with other fields and that new discoveries are usually found on the borders of
several disciplines.
19. My interest in comparative methods and transdisciplinarity has prepared
9
me to do research on marriage. This began with a major contract by Justice Canada and
10
several publications. In addition, I was the associate editor of a new encyclopedia on
11
marriage, responsible for the entries on anthropology and history of religions.
General comments on comparative religion
8
Katherine Young, "Transdisciplinarity: Postmodern Buzz Word or New Methods
for New Problems?" in Transdisciplinarity: Recreating Integrating Knowledge, ed.
Margaret A. Somerville and David J. Rapport (Oxford: EOLSS, 2000).
9
Contract with Justice Canada for research on marriage from the perspective of
comparative religion. 2000.
10
See Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “The Future of an Experiment,” in
Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiment, ed.
Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004);
and Katherine K. Young and Arvind Sharma, “Hindu Marriage,” Ecumenism 163
(September 2006): 4-11..
11
This project was with Routledge Press under the general editorship of Dr. Don
Browning of the University of Chicago. After a year of work, we were told that
Routledge had decided not to continue publishing encyclopedias and would therefore end
the project for an encyclopedia of marriage.
7
20. Scholars in comparative religion study the worldviews of both small-scale

societies (such as those of North American Indians) and large-scale societies (such as
those of China and India). In small-scale societies, religion is fully integrated into what
we would consider secular aspects of culture; everything is religious—not only beliefs
about this or that deity but also about food production, kinship political structures, and so
on. Religion is fully integrated in traditional large-scale societies, too, but it is more
specialized; everything has a religious component in these traditional societies, but
distinctions are made among (religious) law, (religious) art, (religious) economic
structures, (religious) political institutions, and so on. As a result, the study of
comparative religion includes many topics that those outside the field might not identify
immediately as religious. For instance, religions are very concerned with biological
matters such as sex, reproduction, contraception, birth, and childrearing. They produce
12
primary sets of “reproductive rules,” which constitute “parental investment handbooks.”
21. Religions are concerned with social matters too. Three major themes come
up in the sociology of religion: “Religion is a social phenomenon. Each religious tradition
grows out of it, and in turn acts back upon, the social life of the people who participate in
it. Religious traditions contain a systematic set of beliefs that are acted upon and
sustained by rituals and institutions. Each tradition constructs a religious ethos that
defines the taboo lines between acceptable and inappropriate behavior, defines identities,
13
legitimates social orders, and provides guidelines for everyday life.”
12
“Religions are very concerned with matters biological—with sex, with
reproduction, with contraception, with birth and childrearing. Indeed, it may be that no
other aspect of cultural life is so influential in determining how people conduct their day-
to-day doings as their beliefs, and these are nearly always deeply ingrained in the
religions of their cultures ... Religions thus act as culturally phrased biological messages.
They arise from the survival strategies of past group members and continue to advise at
the present time. As such, a religion is a primary set of `reproductive rules,' a kind of
`parental investment handbook'" (Vernon Reynolds and Ralph Tanner, The Biology of
Religion [London: Longman House 1983] 294).
13
Lester Kurtz, Gods in the Global Village: The World's Religions in Sociological
Perspective (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995) 18.
8
22. Using the comparative method, scholars in my field examine traditions to

find general patterns (apart from anything else). The patterns found are used to make
inductive generalizations. These generalizations, in turn, invite explanations. Empirical
data comes from the anthropological study of both small-scale and large-scale societies to
discern what is universal, nearly universal, and variable.
Marriage as an institution
23. I will argue here that the closer these universal features of marriage are to
meeting basic human needs—the biological base line of existence as this relates to
demographic continuity and well-being—the more concerned they will be in directing
important goals. And the more they will evoke the highest authority that the culture of
any society can provide.
24. Thinking of marriage as a religious and social institution provides further
insights. As an institution, marriage is a system in the sense of an ordered and structured
combination of parts into a complex or unitary whole in order to ensure continuity. From
the verb “to institute” in the sense of setting up, establishing, or founding, “institutional”
14
means “[a] well-established and structured pattern of behavior or relationships.” By
definition, institutions are foundational, fundamental, purposeful, public, and well-
established. In this sense, institutions relate to tradition in the sense of norm, standard, or
model; these are based on collective human experience and passed on from one
generation to another. In the case of marriage, these norms are rules that structure the
coming together of men and women so as to provide what their cultures consider the
ideal conditions for having children (one of the five functions of marriage). Accordingly,
marriage has been the building block of society. And the wedding, as it were, is its
institutional portal. The words “marriage” and “family” are often used interchangeably in
common parlance, although they have been distinguished as follows: families are groups
defined by kinship in which parents care for their children, whereas marriage is a socially
14
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (New
York: Portland House, 1989).
9
acknowledged and approved sexual union between a man and a woman who assume
15
responsibility for their children. It is no coincidence that dictionaries choose “marriage”
to illustrate the sociological definition of “institution.”
Marriage as a norm from the perspective of comparative religion
25. The definitions of “spouse” and “marriage” in American law have been
criticized by advocates of same-sex marriage for assuming that marriage must be between
a man and a woman; that its main purpose is procreation; and that no explanation is given
for this definition. In this declaration, I will use empirical evidence to show that marriage
has been a norm essential to public order.
26. A norm is a collective preference. Support is provided by legal authority.
Conformity is encouraged by rewards and discouraged by lack of rewards. All societies
have found it necessary to establish norms not only for sexual behavior but for most other
forms of behavior as well. That is because no society can have it all, just as no individual
can. Every society must make choices. And choosing one thing—one form of behavior,
say—inevitably means not choosing others. Although nature helps identify and establish
17
norms; nature itself does not enforce norms, culture has had to do so. Every society,
therefore, has found it necessary—whether formally or informally, directly or
indirectly—to reward some forms of behavior and not reward others. As one of its
functions, marriage is every society's norm for reproduction, and it has always been
associated with the highest authority (ancestors, deities, scripture, law, and so forth),
public recognition (rituals, witnesses, registrations), and thus public accountability. It has
always been fostered by inducements, moreover, whether social (prestige, say, or
15
Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard P. Appelbaum, Introduction to
Sociology, 4th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004): chapt. 15.
17
Humans have developed a greatly enhanced capacity for culture. This has passed
from one generation to another. "Humans learn the rules that govern behavior and how to
conform to them; they also attach meaning to their ideas."
10
political alliances), economic (transfer of property), religious (divine rewards, and so on),
or a combination of these.
27. In other words, culture refers by definition to the order established by
society in the midst of what would otherwise be chaos. This pattern varies from one
society to another. But all societies have culture. And thus all have the norms on which
order is based. The only question is whether this or that norm is useful and should be
protected or preserved.
28. Not only do all societies create norms, but all individuals live by them as
well. There is no such thing as a human tabula rasa, someone who could engage in an
activity without at least some awareness—no matter how rudimentary, distorted, or
subconsciously perceived through linguistic and other symbols—of its cultural context.
Other species rely heavily on instinct. What instinct does for them, by and large, culture
does for us.
29. As I will show, every society creates some cultural matrix for (1)
complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle; (2) providing
children with at least one parent of each sex whenever possible; (3) providing them with
their biological parents whenever possible; (4) bringing men and women together for
both practical and symbolic purposes; and (5) providing men with a stake in the family
and society. Especially important in this functional schema is the fact that every society
fosters norms that are advantageous for conception, childbirth, and childcare. Not
surprisingly, no society (unless it is in the process of disintegrating) has ever left family
life—including the supposedly biological mechanics of reproduction—entirely to nature
(that is, the sexual urge to mate).
The universal features of marriage
30. I have already introduced the fact that marriage has not one but five
functions:
31. I have noted that this institution is characterized by universal features.
First, I report the definition of marriage supported by cultural anthropology. Next, I will
show that the universal features of my general definition of marriage can be documented
11
historically for the world religions. In other words, I will use comparative religion as a
way of discerning the universal. In addition, I will show that still other features are nearly
18
universal.
Historical evidence
32. Based on a comparative study of the marriage norms of those world

religions that have survived from earlier civilizations (Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism,
Islam, and Christianity), I concur in Suzanne Frayser’s definition of marriage as “a
relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse
19
and the birth of children ....”
18
"Every culture of the world recognizes some form of the institution of marriage ...
There are three major categories of belief about the purposes of marriage: Marriage may
be viewed as existing primarily for the continuation of the family and society through
procreation; it may be considered most importantly as an alliance, that is, the means to
bring about the integration of society by setting up kinship ties and kinship terminology;
and finally, the union of bride and groom may be perceived as a complex system of
exchanges between groups and/or individuals" (Edith Turner and Pamela R. Frese,
"Marriage," in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, vol. 9 [New York:
Macmillan, 1987] 218). The second and third definitions depend on the first: social
conditions for procreation. "Marriage has two main functions: it is the means adopted by
human society for regulating the relations between the sexes; and it furnishes the
mechanism by means of which the relation of a child to the community is determined
...The institution of marriage may be regarded as the central feature of all forms of human
society ... It stands in an especially close relation to the family—using this term for the
group consisting of parents and children. This social group rests absolutely on the
institution of marriage ... The institution of marriage also underlies the extended family"
(W.H.R. Rivers, "Marriage," in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James
Hastings, vol. 8 [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915] 423).
19
Susanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological
Perspective on Human Sexuality (New Haven: HRAS press, 1985), 248 (my emphasis).
Suzanne Frayser's definition is based on a sub-sample (every third example) from the full
Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of 186 societies designed by Murdock and White (1969).
The sample represents world areas and it groups contiguous societies with extremely
similar cultures into clusters, which, "in turn were grouped into 186 `distinctive world
areas' on the basis of similarity in language and other cultural elements" (428).
12
33. World religions fall into two basic categories: ethnic and universalistic.
Although these categories capture key features, it is important to recognize that ethnic
20
religions have also developed many universalistic characteristics and vice versa. It is
also important to keep in mind that all of these religions have been influenced by
modernity and are undertaking reforms, especially to improve the position of women.
34. Ethnic religions include Judaism, Confucianism, and Hinduism. These, at
least in their early stages, have been associated with specific territories and languages.
People are “born into” them. Marriage and the family, including ancestors, are
particularly important. Family solidarity and durability are valued very highly. Marriage
and procreation are encouraged, therefore, and almost always required of the adherents to
these religions. The traditional duties of elite women are undertaken at home, which has
allowed them hardly any place in public life; their identity is defined primarily in terms
of motherhood. But, in modern times, reformers have generated many changes.
35. Universalistic religions include Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. Each
began with a charismatic leader who wanted to reform the ancestral tradition. These
religions offer universal access to salvation, which involves transcending the ordinary
world altogether. Religious identity is based on primary religious experiences and on
belonging to voluntary religious groups (rather than to kinship groups); unlike ethnic
religions, in fact, these make voluntary groups as important as or even more important
than the family. People are encouraged to leave home in search of salvation. Denying the
claims of family life altogether, some become monastics or saints. Nevertheless, most
20
The word "universalism" usually refers to proselytism. Universal religions are said
to be those that spread throughout the world through conversion (and sometimes
conquest). Jews, though, have often called that a spurious form of universalism—one that
relies on conformity to a single notion of truth. For Jews, the word signifies something
more general: openness to the larger world. That is distinguished from "particularism,"
which refers to ethnocentrism. Both perspectives have been around for a very long time,
and the resulting tension for Jews could be described as a characteristic feature of
Judaism both ancient and modern.
I am using the word “universal” here in two senses. One is a feature that occurs
across all cultures (and religions). The other is a subtype of world religions, those spread
across several regions.
13
people orient themselves toward marriage and family life; otherwise, they would find it
unnecessarily hard to transmit religious, or communal, identity to future generations.
Specific universal features
21
36. The five major world religions apart from Buddhism —Judaism,
Confucianism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam—illustrate the universal features of
marriage. There are at least six universal features: (1) authority and incentives; (2)
maleness and femaleness; (3) the public dimension; (4) eligibility; (5) encouragement of
procreation under specific conditions; and (6) mutual support and duties toward children.
37. Authority and incentives: The highest authority in traditional societies is
scripture, or religious law, used either exclusively or in connection with civic authority.
Of interest here are not the details but the fact that marriage has been considered
important enough to be supported with the highest authority and with the most attractive
incentives possible.
38. Maleness and femaleness: Religions have recognized that maleness and
femaleness lie at the heart of human existence—and that each has a cosmic dimension (an
image of the deity, say, or a fundamental aspect of creation).
39. The public dimension: Weddings are public events. This aspect might
involve special times (seasons or weeks); witnesses; vows; the exchange of rings or other
21
I will not discuss Buddhism, another world religion, because its scriptures focus
mainly on a monastic tradition; it says little about the laity in general or of the family in
particular. Buddhists have left family structure largely to the regulations of other local
religions: Hinduism in India, Confucianism in China, and Shinto or Confucianism in
Japan.
The most recent discussion of the relation between Buddhism and family life is by
Alan Cole, “Buddhism.” In Sex, Marriage, and Family in World Religions ed. by Don S.
Browning, M. Christian Green, and John Witte Jr. (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2006) 299-366.
For a discussion of marriage and the family in Buddhism, see also Rita M. Gross,
“The Householder and the World-Renunciant: Two Modes of Sexual Expression in
Buddhism” in Marriage Among the Religions of the World, ed. Arlene Anderson Swidler
(Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 115-136.
14
emblems; an exchange of gifts; processions accompanied by music; feasts; and so on. All
of these public features distinguish marriage from mere mating and define it as a norm.
40. Eligibility: Restrictions on who may marry all disapprove of marriage
between parents and their children. And all permit marriage only between man and
women.
41. Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions: Implicit in the
importance given to maleness and femaleness, their union being central to creation or to
the cosmic order, is the realization that group survival depends on unions of this kind.
World religions use authority and incentives to bond biological fathers to their wives and
children, thus providing the nuclear family with stability.
42. Mutual support and duties toward children: The contributions of both men
and women—providing food, shelter, clothing, and so on—are necessary for family life.
The duties of adults toward children consist, in addition, of their moral training and
education.
43. For these reasons, every culture has customs and laws that encourage
marriage.
The rational connection between the definition of marriage and its restriction to
heterosexual couples
44. Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that the opposite-sex requirement

of marriage is not rationally connected with procreation and childrearing. “The law is
both over-inclusive and under-inclusive,” said one Canadian court. “The ability to
‘naturally’ procreate and the willingness to raise children are not prerequisites of
marriage for opposite-sex couples. Indeed, many opposite-sex couples that marry are
22
unable to have children or choose not to do so. Simultaneously, the law is under-
23
inclusive, because it excludes same-sex couples that have and raise children.”
22
Some married couples are now childless by design, however, rather than by
default. As exceptions, even they do not seriously undermine the symbolism of marriage.
But incorporating them into a new norm by redefining marriage would do precisely that,
because it would reinforce the notion that formalizing “love and commitment” is the
primary function of marriage. It is worth remembering that these couples sometimes
15
45. That criticism is true but also trite, because marriage is a norm. All
societies have found it necessary to establish norms. These are cultural ideals—models,
paradigms, collective preferences. Every society must make choices. And choosing one
thing—one form of behavior, say—inevitably means not choosing others. All norms are
by definition both over-inclusive (allowing some exceptions) and under-inclusive (not
allowing all exceptions). Otherwise, there would be no need for norms. In this case, over-
inclusiveness has a practical advantage: requiring formal vows from couples before they
have children. This gives them time to think carefully about what children will entail—
that is, about the need for some measure of self-sacrifice.
46. Not all married couples do have children, of course, because of infertility,
old age, or choice. Some societies have allowed infertile couples to separate after
annulments or divorces. Others have allowed polygyny or surrogacy in cases of female
infertility. Still others have allowed polyandry, levirate marriage, or some other
mechanism in cases of male infertility.
47. Couples who do not have children maintain the ideal, albeit as exceptions,
merely by being married and therefore supporting an institution intended for couples who
do have children. They do this symbolically. Some do so practically as well, however, by
giving resources to their extended families. These societies could have married couples
after the arrival of children, and that might have made the purpose of marriage more
transparent than it is, but it would also have replaced old problems with new ones. It
would have been much harder, for instance, to establish biological paternity or to
encourage the commitment of men to women and children.
change their minds or have “accidents.” For that reason (along with the need for
demographic survival), every society must assume that most couples will have children.
Marriage has always been based primarily on this and other communal needs in addition
to individual ones, including those of children.
23
Halpern v. Canada (A.G.) (2003) O.A.C. 172. at para. 130.
16
Differences between same-sex relationships and (opposite-sex) marriages
48. Advocates for same-sex “marriage” emphasize similarities between same-

sex and opposite-sex couples but ignore the chief differences highlighted by these
universals. For example, same-sex couples emphasize that marriage is appropriate for
them because they love each other and seek a life-long commitment to one another.
24
49. Note that “love” is a nearly universal feature, not a universal one. It is
desirable, to be sure, but not necessary. The following syllogism expresses the relation
between love and same-sex marriage: Marriage is an institution designed to foster the
love between two people; gay people can love each other just as straight people can; ergo,
marriage should be open to gay people. The second statement is true, and the third may
seem to follow logically from it. Because the first statement is false, however, this line of
reasoning makes no sense. Marriage is a complex institution. Fostering the emotional
gratification of two adults is only one of its functions and not the most important one
from a cross-cultural or historical perspective. (As it happens, an increasing focus on
emotional gratification coincides with declining birthrates and increasing divorce rates in
almost every Western country.) We find it hard to believe that any government would
consider it important to recognize this form of “love” as an end in itself. To do so would
be to endorse the idea that the government has a compelling interest in pleasure.
50. Even though “love and commitment” are the reasons that most people now
give for wanting to marry, they are not necessarily the underlying ones. People might or
might not be conscious of the latter, because these are so deeply embedded in cultural
structures that they are now implicit rather than explicit. The most important reason, as
we will show, is providing the best context for children. People who want to marry but
not to have children are still a minority even today, although their number has grown.
24
It is mainly because many large-scale societies have preferred arranged marriages,
not marriages based on personal choice (although they encourage companionship and
love, too, as a secondary phenomenon that supports marriage). Our point here is to
establish the historical and cross-cultural record, however, not to argue for arranged
marriages.
17
51. Someone could argue that partners in long-term relationships generally

consider themselves “committed,” and many consider themselves “married.” However,
this not only ignores important distinctions between relationships and marriages but also
overlooks the cultural interests that marriage serves. Neither relationships nor civil unions
are marriages, because they do not fulfill the five functions of marriage—including the
production and rearing of children in an optimal environment. For this reason, same-sex
relationships are not synonymous with marriages.
Likely effects of legalizing same-sex marriage on children
52. Redefining marriage is a serious threat to both its functions and its
symbolism. To redefine it as a union between any two people—not between a man and a
woman—is to ignore the distinctive needs of children, men, women, and society.
Communal and public support for heterosexual culture is the necessary counterpart of
heterosexual copulation. And every experiment involves risk. Take away the public
culture of heterosexuality, and you pose a risk to children and to the demographic
continuity of society. Why? Because copulation, governed primarily by nature, is not
synonymous with reproduction. The latter, governed primarily by culture, includes a wide
range of complex heterosexual behaviors that family life within a larger society requires.
53. Same-sex marriage would introduce changes that fragment parenthood.
Some jurisdictions that have legalized same-sex marriage, for instance, have replaced
“husband” and “wife” with “Party A” and “Party B” (Massachusetts), “Parent A” and
“Parent B” (Massachusetts) Progenitor A and Progenitor B (Spain) and “[natural] parent”
with “legal parent” (Canada). Instead of changing terms, some jurisdictions have simply
25
entered the name of the “non-biological mother” into the “father” slot.
25
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash
between Adult Rights and Children’s Needs (New York: Institute for American Values,
2006) 5-14.
18
Exacerbating the identity problem of men
54. To have a healthy identity, all people must be able to contribute something
26
distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued to the larger society. This applies not only to
individuals but also to groups such as men and women. A cross-cultural study of
masculine identity reveals that it has been defined in terms of three functions: provider,
protector, and progenitor. The first two are no longer the exclusive domains of men in the
Western world, because women have now entered the public realm on a massive scale.
Only the third source of identity remains: fatherhood. But even that can be tenuous.
Because men have a more ambiguous connection with their children than women do,
culture reinforces it. This has been one function of marriage. Today, artificial
insemination reduces some men’s contribution to reproduction to often nothing more than
a “teaspoonful of sperm.” The numbers of children conceived through artificial
insemination are growing. The direct or indirect message to men is that they have no
significant place in family life (except as assistant mothers).
Conclusions
55. From my study of comparative religions and the cultures that have derived
from them, it is my opinion that reproduction under specific conditions has always been
one of the five functions of marriage. Today, though, many argue that the main reason for
marriage is companionship. It is my opinion that marriage is a culturally approved
opposite-sex relationship, one function of which is always to encourage the birth and
rearing of children in the most favorable environment available.
56. Some argue that even if procreation under specific conditions were an
essential feature of marriage in the past, it is no longer. That is highly disputable. First,
many western communities have already begun to realize that their continued existence is
by no means assured. And many post-industrial countries worry about low birthrates in
26
See Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching
of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,
2001) 87-89.
19
connection with economic problems on the horizon. Members of the next generation
could face enormous financial pressure to care for their parents, because their tax dollars
would pay for the pensions and medical expenses of an aging population. Second,
marriage has never been defined merely as one context for producing or rearing children,
both of which can occur—and often do—without marriage. Marriage has always been
defined as an ideal context for producing and rearing children. An ideal context is
arguably needed now more than ever. That is because marriage, at least in theory,
provides them with parents of both sexes on an intimate and enduring basis. Special
incentives, therefore, have always been used to support and promote marriage. These
incentives have not been extended to non-marriage relationships because they do not
provide an ideal context for producing and rearing children.
57. Legalizing same-sex marriage would create competing norms. The result
would be the establishment of either a new norm or a hierarchy of norms—both of which
would defeat not only the point of norms but also the aims of those who advocate a
society without what they consider the “oppression” of norms. Either way, the end result
could be anomie.
58. If marriage can mean anything, after all, it can also mean nothing.
59. Same-sex marriage would not simply expand the norm of marriage,
making it more inclusive, it would represent a break with an essential feature of its
definition. And it would do so at potentially a very high cost.
60. Anyone trying to predict the future runs the risk of sounding alarmist,
especially when doing so in the name of caution. But the potential price for acting
without knowing the effect of legalized same-sex marriage is much higher than acting
with caution. And the last few decades illustrate this point. Who would have predicted
thirty years ago that an act of compassion for a few people in unhappy marriages,
legalizing easy divorce, would create a "divorce culture" for the many? Who would have
predicted then that an act of compassion for single mothers, extending the benefits of
welfare, would create a permanent underclass of fatherless families led by single women?
Who would have predicted even ten years ago that acts of compassion for a few childless
couples, sponsoring research on in vitro fertilization and other reproductive technologies,
would lead to debates over the ethics of human cloning? In all of these cases and many
20
more, the original solutions to problems turned into the causes of other problems. There
is reason for deliberate caution.
61. When courts redefine marriage to include homosexuality, they
simultaneously exclude the heterosexual definition of marriage and move marriage
farther away from its grounding in reproduction and the intergenerational cycle. It
effectively makes marriage an institution more purely devoted to romantic love and adult
fulfillment than to the heavier and more selfless responsibilities of having children.
Marital love and parental responsibilities are not mutually exclusive, of course, but the
gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that marital love encompass
these responsibilities. To be sure, some straight couples do not have children and some
gay ones do. But to define an institution as important to society as marriage by exceptions
to the norms of both sexual orientations—rather than by the norms themselves—makes
no sense. It could be argued that marriage is quite literally an outgrowth of
heterosexuality itself, an institution that follows from nature's requirement that men and
27
women sexually merge to perpetuate the species.
62. I have been retained at a rate of $250/hour for my work in connection with this
case.
27
Shelby Steele, “Selma to San Francisco? Same-Sex Marriage Is Not a Civil Rights
Issue," [dated:] 20 March 2004, Opinion Journal, [visited:] 19 August 2004,
www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printTHIS.htm1?id=110004846: 1; this article appeared
in the Wall Street Journal, 20 March 2004.
21
Katherine K. Young, James McGill Professor

Faculty of Religious Studies,
McGill University,
3520 University St.,
Montreal, QC,
H3A 2A7
(514) 398-1511; katherine.young@mcgill.ca
FIELDS
Comparative Religion and Ethics; History of Religions (with specializations in Hinduism and
the religions of Tamilnadu); Gender and Religion
EDUCATION
PhD (McGill University 1978; history of religions; comparative religions; Hinduism; Honour’s
List); Special Student (Harvard University; Center for the Study of World Religions, 1973-
1974; Sanskrit; Indian Philosophy); MA (University of Chicago 1970; comparative religion;
history of religions); College Year in India Program (University of Wisconsin 1965-1966); BA
(University of Vermont, philosophy and religion 1966; Honour’s list for four years).
EMPLOYMENT
James McGill Professor, McGill University (2001-8; renewed until 2015); Full Professor,
McGill University, Faculty of Religious Studies (1997- ); Associate Professor, McGill
University, Faculty of Religious Studies (1978-1997); Assistant Professor, McGill University,
Faculty of Religious Studies (1976-1978); Lecturer McGill University, Faculty of Religious
Studies (1972-1976); Lecturer, Sir George Williams University (now Concordia) (1971-1972);
Lecturer, McGill University, Faculty of Religious Studies (1970-1971); Sessional Lecturer,
Carleton University, Department of Religion (1969-1970).
GRANTS, HONOURS, AND AWARDS
(1) “The Non-brahmin Srivaisnava Revival: Ritual, Proselytism, and Politics in Contemporary
Tamil Nadu. Sole Investigator: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC) ($150,000 over three years) (2007); (2) “Religion, Health, and Ethics: A Comparative
Perspective.” Sole Investigator. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). $333,000
over 5 years (2005); (3) “Singing, Strumming, Drumming, Dancing: Performers as Symbols of
Identity in the Social and Religious Histories of South India.” Chief Investigator (co-
investigator, Leslie Orr (Concordia)). Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (SSHRC). $93,000 over 3 years (2004); (4) James McGill Professorship, McGill
University. Includes a research stipend of $100,000 over 7 years (2002-2009); (5) “Integration of
Sudras into Srivaisnavism: A Study of Contemporary Conversions in Tamilnadu.” SSHRC
McGill Humanities Sub-Committee. Research in India. $1,000 (2000); (6) SSHRC McGill Travel
Grant. $1,500 (2000); (7) Feminism and World Religions, book jointly edited with Arvind
1
Sharma. CHOICE January 2000 as an Academic Book of Excellence for 1999 (2000); (8) “The
Peaceable Ideal of Manhood in Four Societies and Its Implication for Our Own.” Sole
Investigator Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
$88,000 (1997-93); (9) Challenge 92. Federal government funding for research assistant for
project on feminism. $2000 (1992); (10) “New Reproductive Technologies and the Family.”
Principal investigator (co-investigator, P. Nathanson). Donner Canadian Foundation.
$520,000 Research undertaken in connection with the development of a Family and Law Program
(McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law). Half of the funding went towards this program
((1992-1988); (11) “Protestant Reflections on New Reproductive Technologies.” Association of
Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS). $9,000. (1991-90); (12)
Challenge 90. Federal government funding for research assistant for project on reproductive
technologies. $2000 (1990). “Reproduction and Religion: A Classical Hindu Perspective.”
SSHRC McGill Humanities Sub-Committee. $2700.00 (1990); (13) Challenge 89. Federal
government funding for research assistant for project on Donner Foundation Project. $2000
(1989); (14) Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute Language Training Grant. $6,000 (1984-83);
(15) SSHRC Research Leave Grant (India and France). $10,000 (1984-83); (16); McGill
University, Honour List for Ph.D (1978). (17) Canada Council Fellowships (1975-72); (18)
Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute Fellowship (1972-71); (19) University of Chicago Graduate
Fellowships (full tuition and board) (1968-66); (20) NDEA Language Grant (1967 summer);
(21) University of Wisconsin College Year in India Scholarship (1966-65); (22) Dean's
Honour List each semester, University of Vermont (1965-62).
COURSES TAUGHT
Graduate courses: Religion and Caste; Theories in Religious Ethics; Religion and Medicine;
Bioethics and World Religions; Special Studies: Hinduism and Caste; Religions of South India I
and II; Visistadvaita Vedanta; Indian Logic; Advaita-vedanta Asian Medical Systems; Gender
and World Religions (IAIN: Jakarta, Indonesia)’ Methodologies in the Study of Gender and
Religion (IAIN: Yogyakarta, Indonesia) Undergraduate courses. Indian religions and culture
Bhakti Hinduism; Introduction to Hinduism and Buddhism; Hindu and Buddhist Images of the
Feminine; Myth and Symbol in Hindu and Buddhist Art; Hinduism; Buddhism; Classical
Hinduism; Introduction to Indian Civilization I and II; Methodology: Religionswissenschaft;
Theories of Religion; World Religions, Comparative Religion: Introduction to World
Religions; Religions of the Far East and Islam; Mysticism; Sacred City and the Wilderness;
Religious Leadership; Death, Conversion; Meditation; Religion and Medicine; Ethics and Law:
Suicide, Self-willed Death, and Euthanasia; Religion, Pluralism, and Human Rights (Honours
Methodology Colloquium); Ethics of Violence and Non-Violence; Comparative Bioethics at the
Margins of Life; Bioethics: A Comparative (Canada-India) Approach. Languages: Sanskrit
(Introductory, Intermediate, Advanced) Sanskrit (Graduate); Graduate courses involving
translation of Tarkasangraha, Arthasangraha; Yatindramatadipika, Sankara's and Ramanuja's
commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, Ramanuja's Vedantasara, etc.; Tamil (Introductory).
Reading Courses: A Comparative Study of Vaisnava and Saiva Hagiographies (special theme:
miracles); (2008) Sanskrit: Advanced Level (2006 Fall and Winter); Hindu Religious Sites in
Montreal (2003); Tamil (2001; Ethics (2001)
GRADUATE STUDENTS
PhD and MA Theses Completed: Aimee Patterson, “The Ends of Medicine at the End of Life:
Understanding the Ordinary-Extraordinary Means Distinction in an Age of Pervasive
2
Technology” (SSHRC) co-advised with Gaelle Fiasse (PhD); Jordon Prokopy, The Interface of
Medicine Spirituality, and Ethics: A Case Study of the McGill Programs in Whole Person Care
(2008; Dean’s Honour’s List); Erin Reid, MA “ Needling the Spirit: An Investigation of the
Perceptions and Uses of the Term `Qi’ by Acupuncturists Trained in Quebec (2008 Dean’s
Honour’s List; co-supervisor Robin Yates, East Asian Studies); Thomasz Pokinko, “Strategies
for Justifying Violence in Societal Self-Defence in Indian Lay Jainism: A Textual and
Ethnographic Study” (MA) (FQRSC) (2008); R. Balasubramanian, “The Tirukkalirruppatiyar:
Transition from Bhakti to Caiva Cittantam Philosophy” (Dean’s Hounour’s List), MA (2006);
Jose Thevercad, “The Architectural Theory of the Manasara.” (on thesis committee in the
School of Architecture) (Dean’s Honour’s List), PhD (2004); Davesh Soneji, “Vanity,
Womanhood, and Devotion: Satyabhama in Textual and Extratexual Tradition.” (Dean’s
Honour’s List), PhD (2004); Laurie Lamoureux-Scholes, “The Social Authority of Religion in
Canada: A Study of Contemporary Death Rituals.” (Dean’s Honour’s List) MA (2004); Natalia
Abraham, “Ayurveda and Religion in Canada: A Critical Look at New Age Ayurveda From the
Indian Diaspora Perspective,” MA (2003); Colin O'Rourke, “God, Saint and Priest: A
Comparison of Mediatory Modes in Roman Catholicism and Srivaisnavism with special reference
to the Council of Trent and the Yatindramatadipika.” (joint supervision with T. Kirby) PhD
(2003). Barbra Clayton, “Ethics in the Siksamuccaya: A Study in Mahayana Morality.” (joint
supervision with R. Hayes) (Dean’s Honour’s List) PhD (2002); associate professor Mount
Allison; Arti Dhand, “Poison, Snake, the Sharp Edge of a Razor: Yet the Highest of Gurus:
Defining Female Sexuality in the Mahabharata.” PhD (2002). associate professor, the University
of Toronto 2001-); Noel Salmond, “Hindu Iconoclasts: Rammohun Roy, Dayananda Sarasvati
and Nineteenth-Century Polemics Against Idolatry.” Associate professor, Carleton University,
Ph.D. (1999); Kamala Nayar, “Hayagriva: Lord of Light and Learning.” PhD (1998) (SSHRC
post-doctoral grant); associate professor Kwantlen Polytechnique; Anjoli Bandyopadhyay, “The
Religious Significance of Ornaments and Armaments in the Myths and Rituals of Kannaki and
Draupadi,” MA (1996); Colin O'Rourke, “Globalization or Liberation Theology? An
Examination of the Presuppositions and Motives Underlying the Efforts Toward Globalization.”
(co-supervisor with Dean Runnalls), MA (1995); Zain Kassam-Hann, “Imam and Avatara: A
Study of Divine-Human Configurations in Islam and Hinduism.” Associate professor, Pamona
College, (Claremont, CA), USA, PhD (1994); Leslie C. Orr, “Donors, Devotees, and Daughters
of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu,” PhD (1993) Published: Donors, Devotees, and
Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu. (New York: Oxford University Press,
2000). Religion Department, Concordia University; Julian Woods, “Daiva (Destiny) and Purus.
akara (Human Initiative) in the Mahabharata” Independent researcher.” PhD (1993) Published:
Destiny and Human Initiative in the Mahabharata (Albany: State University of New York Press,
2001); Tazim Kassam, “Songs of Wisdom and Circles of Dance: an Anthology of Hymns by the
Satpanth Isma`ili Saint, Pir Shams.” PhD (1992), Associate Professor, Syracuse University.
Published: Songs of Wisdom and Circles of Dance (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1995); Nancy Ann Nayar, “The Srivaisnava Acarya as Sanskrit Poet: A Study of the Stotra from
10th to 13th Centuries.” PhD (1991), Published: Poetry as Theology: The Srivaisnava Stotra in
the Age of Ramanuja (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992). Upinder Singh, “Kings, Brahmanas
and Temples in Orissa: An Epigraphic Study (300-1147 C.E.).” PhD (1991), Published: Kings,
Brahmanas, and Temples in Orissa: an Epigraphic Study (300-1147 C.E.) (New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993). Professor St. Stephen's College (Delhi University, India). Paul
Nathanson, “Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth.” PhD (1989), Published:
Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America (Albany: State University of
New York, 1991). Independent scholar and editor; Shrinivas Tilak, “Religion and Aging in the
Indian Tradition. A Textual Study.” (PhD (1988); Published: Religion and Aging in the Indian
Tradition (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989). Assistant Professor, Concordia
3
University; Julian Woods, “The Phenomena of Boon and Curse in the Mahabharata” MA (1988);
Kristyna Pakneys, “A Study of the Buddha's Epithets in the Khuddaka Nikaya” MA (1988).
Theses in Process: Sanjay Kumar, “Women in the Textual Tradition of the Mahabharata and
its Televised Version (1988-1990).”(FQRSC) (PhD); Jessica Main, “Japanese Buddhism and
Human Rights: Exclusion and Reconciliation.” (joint supervision with V. Hori) (SSHRC and
MEXT (Japan) (PhD) [UBC tenure-tract assistant prof]; Cory Lebrecque, “Transhumanism as
Secular Religion: Allure of the Transcendent in the Biotech Age and Its Ethical Implications”
(Faculty of Religious Studies Full Funding Package) (PhD); Erin McCann, Linguistic Analysis
of Manipravala in Srivaisnavism: a Case of Creole Genesis” (PhD) [research funding from my
SSHRC grant]; Chris Durante, topic; religious pluralism in bioethics (PhD) [funded by my
CIHR grant]; R. Balasubramanian, Early Saiva-siddhanta; Jordon Knogten, The Antinomianism
of Kabir (co-advised with S. Alvi in the Islamic Institute) (MA) Jenna Preston (MA) [funded by
my CIHR grant]
SPECIAL PROJECTS
Research trip (Chennai and Pondicherry, India) and invited participant for the Interational
Workshop on the Internal and External Chronology of Tamil Bhakti held at Ecole Française
d’Extrême-Orient (Centre of Pondicherry): Pondicherry Aug 2009). Research trip Chennai,
Hyderabad, Pondicherry (January 2009); Organized Day-long Symposium “Complementary and
Alternative Medicine: Medical, Legal, Religious, and Multicultural Implications with keynote
speakers David Colquhoun, eminent UK scientist and Michael H. Cohen, lawyer and professor at
Harvard School of Public Health (9 May 2008); Research trip, Chennai, India (2007);
Declaration of Katherine Young as Expert Witness for Defendant. The Iowa District Court
for Polk County Case No. CV 596 January 2007. Research trip (2006), Chennai, India (2006);
Research trip. Chennai, India (2005); Legislative Committee on Bill C-38: House of
Commons, Presentation by Dr. Katherine K. Young, “Proposed Amendments to Bill C-38”
(June 8, 2005); Address to “The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs of the Canadian Parliament” (July 12, 2005). Declaration of Katherine Young,
Superior Court of the State of California; City and County of San Francisco. Marriage
cases: Thomasson, et. al. Petitioners, v. Newsom, et al. respondents. Proceeding no. 4365
case no. 428794 (consolidated with 503943). 2003 Contract. Associate editor. The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Marriage. Chief ed., Don Browning. [contract abandoned. Publisher
decided to leave the encyclopedia business.] Research trip. Chennai, India (2004); Katherine
Young and Paul Nathanson. “Questioning some of the Claims for Gay Marriage,” Invited
presentation to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights. Affidavit. Record of the Respondent the Attorney General of Canada, Vol.
2A, Tab F. for Halpern (2002) and for EGALE Canada Inc. v. Canada (A.G.) [2001 B.C.J.
NO. 1995 (S.C.) (2002). Organizer with graduate student D. Soneji for Conference on Religion
in South India, The Living Arts: Changing Ritual and Performance Traditions in South India”
sponsored jointly by the Canadian Museum of Civilization (Ottawa) and McGill Faculty of
Religious Studies (2000); Contract with the Department of Justice, Canada for research on
marriage from the perspective of comparative religion (2000). Visiting Professor, IAIN
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, for the Indonesia-Canada Higher Education Project: Taught a graduate
course on “Methodological Approaches to the Study of Gender and Religion” and taught a three-
week (four hours per day) Workshop on “Religion and Development” (1999); One month
research in southern Sweden (1998); Sabbatical (1997-98). Five months research in
Cambridge, England (1996); One month research in Stockholm, Sweden (1996); Arvind
4
Sharma, Katherine K. Young, D. Stewart and Paul Nathanson, eds., the Journal of Gender and
World Religions (1995-2002); Organizer for McGill Symposium. Interfaith and Legal dimensions
of Multiculturalism (1995); Organizer for McGill Symposium. Ethics and the Environment
(1994); Sabbatical Research. University of Toronto. Centre for Bioethics (1992-91); Board of
Trustees, Vedic School, Kapilesvaram, Andhra Pradesh, India (1992-91); Research trip to
Germany to interview theologians and ethicists on new reproductive technologies (1991);
Organizer of panels on “Women and Religion” for the Canadian Society for the Scientific Study
of Religion (CSSR) at the Learned Society meetings (1989); International Seminar on Study of
Srivaisnavism (Bombay). Co-Sponsor with Dr. K.K.A. Venkatachari of Ananthacharya
Indological Research Institute (1989); Conference on Religion in South India (Steering
Committee) (1989-87); Arvind Sharma, Katherine K. Young, eds., The Annual Review of Women
in World Religions (State University of New York Press) ongoing (6 vols. published) (1988-
2005); Conference on Heroic Women in Politics, Religion, Literature and Society (Carleton
University) co-host. (1988); Organizer and Host for CRSI (Conference on Religion in South
India) (1987); Women Religious Specialists: FCAR Research Project with Lynn Teskey
(Concordia) and K. Young (McGill) (1987-86); Editor of ARC; Religion and Violence II. Vol.
XIII, No. 2 Spring, 1986; Organized “Issues in the Study of Religion” (weekly lecture series
sponsored by the Islamic Institute and the Faculty of Religious Studies) (1986-4); Organized a
special lecture series for McGill entitled: “Women Erased?: Power, Patriarchy and Religion”
which brought six well-known scholars on Women and Religion to the McGill campus (1981);
Member of Equipe d'encadrement for “Voyage d'Etudes en Inde et a Sri Lanka,” organized by the
University of Sherbrooke and funded by CIDA to introduce French Canadian students and
teachers to the study of India and Sri Lanka (1980-78); McGill-Shastri Indian Studies Summer
Program (involving students from across Canada); designed, co-ordinated and lectured in the
interdisciplinary courses Introduction to Indian Civilization I and II. (1979);
CHIEF EDITOR
McGill Studies in the History of Religions: An International Series with State University of
New York Press, USA (1987-2003): Women in World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma (1987);
Hindu Ethics: Purity, Abortion and Euthanasia by H. Coward, J. Lipner and K. Young (1989);
Religion and Aging in the Indian Tradition by S. Tilak (1989); Over the Rainbow by P.
Nathanson (1991); Religion and Women Ed. A. Sharma (1993); Today's Woman in World
Religions Ed.A. Sharma (1993); Songs of Wisdom and Circles of Dance by T. Kassam (1995);
Because It Gives Me Peace Of Mind: Ritual Fasts in the Religious Lives of Hindu Women by Ann
Mackenzie Pearson (1996); Kenosis and Feminist Theology: The Challenge of Gianni Vattimo by
Marta Frascati-Lochhead (1998); Feminism and World Religions (Ed by A. Sharma and
Katherine K. Young (1999); Freedom: Through Inner Renunciation: Sankara’s Philosophy in a
New Light by Roger Marcaurelle (2000); The Concept of Bodhicitta in Santideva's
Bodhicaryavatara by Francis Brassard (2000); Women Saints in World Religions Ed. A. Sharma,
2000; Destiny and Human Initiative in the Mahabharata by Julian Woods (2000); Identifying
Selfhood: Imagination, Narrative, and Hermeneutics in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur by H. I.
Venema (2000); Ritual Worship of the Great Goddess: The Liturgy of the Durga Puja with
Interpretations by Hillary Peter Rodrigues (2003); Women in the Yoruba Religious Sphere by
Oyeronke Olajubu (2003).
ADMINISTRATION AND ACADEMIC SERVICE
5
International, National, and Provincial Committees: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Reviewer for the Health Ethics, Law and Humanities Peer Review Committee (Ottawa 2009-
2008). American Academy of Religion: Standing Committee on Teaching and Learning (1998-
95); Organized a Special Topics Forum for the Academy called Mindfield or Minefield: Teaching
Religion in the Multi-cultural classroom for the 1996 Annual Meeting; Also worked on the
Syllabus Project and general planning; advising to publication Spotlight On Teaching; and did the
five year review for one of the AAR units (1996); National Research Council of Canada Human
Subjects Research Ethics Committee (1996-92); American Academy of Religion: Steering
Committee, Religion in South Asia Section (1995-92); SSHRC Committee to review Canadian
Journals in the Humanities (1995); Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute: Fellowship Selection
Committee (Calgary) (1993); Contributing Editor, Spotlight on Teaching: American Academy of
Religion (1995-92); CBC Advisory Board for Programs on Religion (Quebec) (1991-89);
Chairperson Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute: Fellowship Selection Committee (1985); Shastri
Indo-Canadian Institute: Fellowship Selection Committee (1984). McGill Committees: Review
of Research Centres (2008); Prodean (Medicine, Education, Social Work, Islamic Studies (2008-
2007); Selection Committee for Vice Principal of Graduate Studies (2006-5);; Selection
Committee for Dean of Graduate Studies (2007-2005); University Tenure Committee for
Recruitment for the Faculty of Religious Studies (2009-2005); McGill Senate (2004-3); Research
Policy Committee (2004-3); Faculty of Law: Promotions Committee (2003-2000); Nominations
Committee (2003); Sexual Harassment (2003-1998); University Admissions Committee (2001-
2000); Executive, McGill School of the Environment. (2001-2000); Committee to select Dean of
the Faculty of Religious Studies (2000); Faculty of Arts Tenure Committee (alternate) (2001-
2000); Committee to select the Beaverbrook Chair in Ethics, Media and Communications (2000);
Search committee for a position in Religion and Environment (2001-1998); Represented McGill
on Commission Des Universites Sur Les Programmes [Religion] (1999); Academic Policy and
Planning Committee (2001-1998); Committee to select a new dean of law (1998-99); McGill
Senate (1995-92); McGill Association of University Teachers (Council) (1995-92); McGill
Association of University Teachers (Committee on Harassment) (1995-92); McGill Board
Committee on the Regulations Concerning Complaints of Sexual Harassment (1995-93); McGill
Advisory Committee: Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute (1995-75); Faculty of Arts Tenure
Committee (1994-92); McGill Faculty of Medicine—Committee on Ethics and Teaching (1992-
90); McGill Centre for Medicine Ethics and Law. Bioethics Graduate Studies Advisory
Committee (1992); McGill Senate (1991-86); Faculty of Medicine: Sub-committee on Ethics
Education (1991); Humanities Fellowships Selection Committee (1990); Humanities Research
Grants Sub-committee (1990-87); East Asian Studies Advisory Committee (1989-81); McGill
Committee to select MacKenzie King Open and Travelling Scholarships (1987); McGill Institute
of Medicine, Ethics and Law (Faculty of Religious Studies representative) (1987-86);
Chairperson McGill Advisory Committee: Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute (1986-85); Marshall
for Graduation (1986-85); Selection Committee for a New Dean for the Faculty of Religious
Studies (1980); McGill Committee (representing the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research)
which formulated McGill's response to the Quebec government's document “Problematique de la
politique scientifique.” (1979). Faculty of Religious Studies Committees: Promotion to full
professor (D. Farrow) (2008-9; Ph.D. orals (R. Namasee (2008), Derek Melchin (2008); BA,
Graduate Studies, ongoing; Selection of a director for CREOR (2008); Pre-tenure review
Committee: Davesh Soneji (2006); Promotion Committee: Ellen Aitken (2006); Search
Committee: Ethics (2006-5); Promotion Committee: T. Kirby (2006-5); Chair of Search
Committee: Hinduism (2003-2); Search Committee: Buddhism (2003-2); Faculty: BA, Grad,
Council (2007-3); Search committee for a joint position in Religious Studies and School of the
Environment (2002-2000); Acting Dean (July 1979); Doktorklub (1996-5); Faculty representative
to ARC (1995-93); B.A. Committee (1995-75); Graduate Committee (1995-78); Visiting
Speakers Series (1995-91); Chair, B.A. Committee (1991-81); B.A. Committee Advisor (1991-
6
75); Committee to Design a Graduate Program in Ethics and Medical Humanities (1987); Visiting
Speakers (1987-77); Editorial Committee for ARC (a publication of news and scholarly articles
from the McGill Faculty of Religious Studies); Chair of ARC 1985-79); Executive (1985-77);
Committee to Study Teaching Evaluation (1981); Secretary of Graduate Studies Committee
(1980-78); Educational Development Consultant (1979-78). Other: External Reviewer for a
tenure file University of Ottawa (2008); external reviewer for promotion to full professor
University of Winnipeg (2008); external reviewer for promotion to full professor, Denison
University (2005); External Reviewer for the Department of Religion (2008); Toronto University
(2001); External Reviewer for the Department of Religion, McMaster University (2000).
MEDIA AND PRINT INTERVIEWS
Katherine Young on a panel with Steve Paikin, The Agenda, TVO to debate “Why aren’t there
more women in politics? (2008) Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson; interviewed by Sean
Moncrief on The Moncrief Show, News Talk Radio, Dublin, Ireland, 3 August 2007; Katherine
Young and Paul Nathanson interviewed by Daniel Bell for “Dorks, Dweebs, and Dummies,”
Times [of London], 31 July 2007; Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson.; interviewed by Michael
Seeber for CPR [Centre for Parental Responsibility: family law reform] TV (Minnesota Cable
Network, Minneapolis and www.mcn6.org). Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson; interviewed
by Gregory Andresen in Washington D.C. July 2007; for “Dads on the Air” Radio (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation); Katherine Young. Interviewed by Steve Paikin, The Agenda, TVO on
discrimination against men. December 13, 2006; Katherine Young. Interviewed by Bethany A
Heitman of Cosmopolitan Magazine for article in March 2007 issue. Nov 15, 2006; Katherine
Young and Paul Nathanson, interviewed by Lorna Dueck, “A Child’s Rights: Revisiting Same-
Sex Marriage,” on Listen Up TV, Global Quebec, Montreal, [date of taping 29 November 2006;
Katherine Young (on Legalizing Misandry: from Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination
against Men (interviewed by Leo Carbonneau for University Affairs (vol 47, No. 10, December
2006). (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Published as “Counter Culture:
Academics who Defy the Dogma,” by Leo Charbonneau 8-15; Katherine Young (on the relation
of new biotechnologies to developments in secular religion: interviewed by Doug Basely:
Edmonton Journal 22 March 2005). Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young (on Spreading
Misandry: the Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (McGill-Queens University
Press, 2001)): selected interviews of both authors unless otherwise noted; Bernie Ahearn for A
Man’s World broadcast on www.healthylife.net, 28 July 2005; Terry Schroell, Toronto Film
School for the student film “Two Wrongs Won’t Make a Right;” Roy Greene, The Roy Greene
Show, Chorus Network, CHML, Hamilton, Ontario, 14 November 2001; Paul and Carol Mott on
The Motts (open line), CFRB, Toronto, Ontario, 14 November 2001.; Anne Legace Dawson on
Home Run, CBC, CBFM, Montreal, Quebec, 15 November 2001; Larry Fedoruk on Drive Home
(open line), Telemedia, CKTB, St. Catherines, Onterio, 15 November 2001; Al Stafford on The
Stafford Show (open line), Chorus Network, CHED, Edmonton, Alb., 15 November 2001; Dave
Rutherford on The Rutherford Show, Chorus Network, CHQR, Calgary, Alberta, 16 November,
2001; Peter Warren on Warren on the Weekend (open line), CKVN, Vancouver, British
Columbia, 18 November 2001; Melanie Deveau on Guy's Corner, CKLW, Windsor, Ont., 20
November 2001; John Gormley on John Gormley Live (open line), Rawlko, CKOM, Saskatoon
and CJME, Regina, 21 November 2001; David and Diane Nicholson during a panel discussion at
their salon, 21 November 2001; Tommy Schnurmacher on The Tommy Schnurmacher Show,
CBC, CJAD, Montreal, Quebec, 29 November 2001; Michael Coren, on Michael Coren Live,
CTS, Burlington, Ontario, 3 December 2001. With Michael Rowe and Gwen Smith; Paula Todd
on Studio 2, TV Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 7 December 2001. With Susan G. Cole; Katherine K.
Young, interviewed by Tracey McKee on This Morning Live, Global (TV), Montreal, Quebec, 12
7
December 2001; Katherine Gombay on “Art Talk,” CBC, Montreal, Quebec, 12 December 2001;
Dennis Trudeau for Canada Now, CBC, 21 January 2002. With Lillian Robinson (head of
Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University).’ Canada Now, CBC, Montreal, Quebec,
January 2002; Katherine K. Young, interviewed by Frank Prendergast for Book Television at the
Atlas Boxing Centre, Bravo!, Toronto, 4 April 2002. [will appear on Canadian Learning
Television across Canada; also internationally syndicated in USA, Europe, Australia. One hour
show; will include interviews by two other guests who have read the book.]; Book Television,
Bravo! Toronto, 30 January 2002; Laura Schlessinger on Dr. Laura, KFI radio, Los Angeles, 10
January 2002; Daniel Richler on Book TV, Toronto, 30 January 2002; Vicki Gabereau on Vicki
Gabereau, CTV, Vancouver, 18 February 2002; Robert Sapienza and Howard Gontovnick, for
CINQ-FM, Montreal, 20 and 27 April 2002; “The Problem of Misandry and the Possibility of
Intersexual Dialogue,” presented at the conference on Visions of Men’s Health, sponsored by
Catholic Community Services and the ManKind Project, Montreal, 13 June 2002; Joe Manthey
on The Joe Manthey Show, MND Radio, Los Angeles,
www.mensnewsdaily.com/radio/mantheyshow.htm, 22 July 2002; Dimanche Magazine by Chantal
Lavigne, CBC (Radio Canada), Montreal, 1 October 2002; Matthew Walls for his class on
“Broadcast Journalism,” Concordia University, Montreal, 3 October 2002; Tanya Spreckley on
SexTV: The Series, CityTV (Chum), Toronto, 25 October 2002; Tom Clark on The Tom Clark
Show, Wisconsin Public Radio, 13 March 2003.; Dave Taylor on Afternoons with Dave Taylor,
CHQR radio, Calgary, 25 March 2003.
PUBLICATIONS: Divided into four fields: Ethics and Law, Gender, Hinduism, and Other
Topics. Includes additional sections on “in press, under contract, accepted for publication,”
and “in progress.” (Katherine K. Young is the sole author unless otherwise indicated)
CODING SYSTEM: B (book single author); B2 (book: 2 authors), BEd (book sole editor);
BEd2 (book; two editors); J (journal); J2 (journal: 2 authors); C (chapter single author);
C2 (chapter: 2 authors); E (encyclopedia article: single author); R (book review); O2 (op
eds: 2 authors)
PUBLICATIONS: ETHICS AND LAW

C 2009 6 chapters for The Cambridge World History of Medical Ethics. Eds. Robert Baker and
Laurence B. McCullough (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [reviewed]
Ch 3: Medical Ethics through the Life Cycle in Hindu India, 101-112
Ch 4 Medical Ethics through the Life Cycle in Buddhist India, 113-125
Ch 9 The Discourse of Hindu Medical Ethics, 175-184
Ch 10 The Discourses of Buddhist Medical Ethics, 185-194
Ch 20 The Discourses of Practitioners in India, 324-334
Ch 44 The Discourses of Bioethics in South Asia, 509-524
C 2009. “Just-War Theory in South Asia: Indic Success, Sri Lankan Failure” In World
Religions After 9/11 Westport, CT. Ed. Arvind Sharma (Praeger: 2009), 37-68 [reviewed]
E 2007. Ahimsa. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C. Robinson, and
M. York. London: RoutledgeCurzon. [reviewed]
8
E 2007. Human Rights. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C.

Robinson, and M. York. London: RoutledgeCurzon. [reviewed]
E 2007. Mahapatakas. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C. Robinson,
and M. York. London: RoutledgeCurzon. [reviewed]
E 2007. Prayaschicitta. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C.
E 2007. Law. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C. Robinson, and M.
York. London: RoutledgeCurzon. [reviewed]
E 2007. War and Peace. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C.
E 2007. Niyoga. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C. Robinson, and
J2 2007. “Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “Redefining Marriage or
Deconstructing Society: a Canadian Case Study.” Journal of Family Studies (Australia).
Vol 13 issue 2 ((November 2007), 133-178. [reviewed]
C 2005. “Health.” The Blackwell Companion to Religious Ethics. Ed. William Schweiker.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 519-527. [reviewed]
C 2005. “Nonviolence and Peace in Hinduism: Is There a Connection?” Religion, Terrorism
and Globalization: Nonviolence: A New Agenda. Ed. Kuriakose Karikottu. Nova Science
Publishers. [reviewed]
C2 2004. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “The Future of an Experiment.”
Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s new Social Experiment. Eds.
Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press. 41-62.
C 2004. “Hinduism and the Ethics of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Ethics and Weapons of
Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives. Eds. Sohail Hashmai and Steven Lee.
Cambridge University Press. (The Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics.) 277-307.
[reviewed]
C 2004. “The Status of the Fetus in Scriptural Hinduism” Der Umgang mit vorgeburtlichem
Leben in anderen Kulturen. Berlin: Nationaler Ethikrat. 51-61. [reviewed]
C 2003. “Traditional Hindu Views on Planned Self-Will Death and Euthanasia.” Reason and
Insight: Western and Eastern Perspectives on the Pursuit of Moral Wisdom. Eds. Timothy
Shanahan and Robin Wang. Thomson Wadsworth. 318-325. [reviewed]
B2 2001. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of
Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen’s University
Press. 370 pp. [reviewed] [see Media for television and radio interviews]
BEd3 2000. David E. Guinn, Chris Barrigar, Katherine K. Young, eds. Religion and Law in the
Global Village. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 219 pp. [reviewed]
E 1995. “Death: Eastern Thought.” Encyclopedia of Bioethics. Chief ed. Warren T. Reich. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 487-498. [reviewed]
J 1994. “A Cross-cultural Historical Case Against Planned Self-Willed Death and Assisted
Suicide,” McGill Law Journal 39.3 (October): 657-707. [reviewed]
9
C 1994. “Hindu Bioethics.” Religious Methods and Resources in Bioethics. Ed. Paul F.
Camenisch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 3-30. [reviewed]
J2 1991. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “Living Together: Etiquette for a
Multireligious Society.” Hikmat 3.5 (July): 8-17. [reviewed]
C 1990. “The Classical Indian View of Tolerance with Special Reference to the Tamil Epic
Cilappatikaram.” Truth and Tolerance. Ed. E. Furcha. Montreal: McGill, Faculty of Religious
Studies, ARC Supplement. 83-112. [reviewed]
B3 1989. H.C. Coward, Julius J. Lipner and Katherine K. Young, Hindu Ethics: Purity, Abortion
and Euthanasia Albany: State University of New York Press. 139 pp. [reviewed] [authors
alphabetical]
C 1989. “Euthanasia: Traditional Hindu Views and the Contemporary Debate.” Hindu Ethics:
Purity, Abortion and Euthanasia. Eds. H.C. Coward, Julius J. Lipner and Katherine K.
Young. Albany: State University of New York Press. 71-130. [reviewed]
In press, under contract, or accepted for publication

C2 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “Gender Equality and Sex Difference: the Effects
on Fathers and Children” for the volume What is Parenthood? Two Competing Models for
Understanding Today’s Revolution in Parenthood ed. by Linda C. McClain and Dan Cere.
C “The Institution of Marriage: Mediation of Nature and Culture in Cross-Cultural
Perspective.” Chapter for a volume entitled The Conjugal Bond: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on the Institution of Marriage edited by Daniel Cere [under review].
Work in progress
B2 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Contra: the Case Against Same-sex Marriage.
book manuscript
B2 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Liberating the Body: On the Frontier between
Medicine and Religion. book manuscript
B2 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Like an Autumn Leaf: A Study of Old Age in Art and
Religion book manuscript [under review: McGill-Queen’s University Press]
B Religion, Health, and Ethics: A Comparative Perspective; book manuscript funded by CIHR
Bed Katherine K. Young, ed. The Ethical Physician: A Comparative Perspective [book
manuscript with chapters on Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, and
Christianity].
C2 Sanjay Kumar and Katherine K. Young. “The Ethical Physician as Spiritual Person: the
Integral Approach of Classical Hindu Medicine.” Chapter for “The Ethical Physician: A
Comparative Perspective”
J2 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “Three Views on Assisted Reproduction: a
Comparative Perspective.”
C “Altruism and religion in the context of planetary stress.” Bioethics for a Small Planet:
Responding to Health Needs as a Test Case. Eds. M. A. Somerville and T. Schrecker.
10
GENDER
2009 J “Fate Hangs on a Particle: The Hermeneutics of Bhagavadgita 9:32. Journal of Hinduism
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
E 2008. “World Religions: Gendering;” Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. ed.
by Bonnie G. Smith. [reviewed]
E 2008. “World Religions: Processes of Creation;” Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World
History ed. by Bonnie G. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press USA. [reviewed]
E 2008. “World Religions: Diffusion;” and “Proselytization.” Oxford Encyclopedia of Women
in World History edited by Bonnie G. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press USA.
[reviewed]
BEd2 2007. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, eds. Fundamentalism and Women in
World Religions (New York: T & T Clark, 2007). [sold out and reissued as a paperback 2008]
[reviewed]
E 2007. “Overview: Status of Women. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson,
E 2007. Pativrata/Patiparmesvara. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and
E 2007. Sex and Sexuality. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M.
E 2007. Motherhood. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
Encyclopedia of Hinduism. [reviewed]
E 2007. Child Marriage. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M.
York. London: RoutledgeCurzon [reviewed]
E 2007. Foeticide. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
London: RoutledgeCurzon. [reviewed]
E 2007. Infanticide. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Divorce. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York. London:
RoutledgeCurzon. [reviewed]
E 2007. Sati. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York. London:
E 2007. Pandita Ramabai Saraswati. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson,
E 2007. Women’s Movement. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M.
E 2007. Feminism. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
London: RoutledgeCurzon. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M.
11
E 2007. Women’s Question/Social Evils. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C.

E 2007. Women’s Rituals. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M.
York. London: RoutledgeCurzon.[reviewed]
E 2007. Sarojini Naidu. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007.Madhu Kishwar. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Stridharma. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Virginity. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Celibacy. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Education. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Widowhood. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York.
E 2007. Ban on Widow Remarriage. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C.
E 2007. Dowry. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C. Robinson, and M. York. London:
O 2007. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, Ottawa Citizen. Special Feature. “Another
O 2007. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, Invited Op Ed, “Men, Misogyny and Misandry,”
Ottawa Citizen, 6 April 2007.
B2 2006. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to
Systemic Discrimination Against Men. Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen’s University
Press. 650 pp. [reviewed] [see Media below for television and radio interviews]. Review in
the Times Literary Supplement March 30, 2007 “Against the Male Stream” by Jean Bethke
Elshtain p. 26.
C 2005. “Sankara on the Liberation of Women and Sudras,” Goddesses and Women in the Indic
Religious Tradition. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Leiden: Brill. 131-166. [reviewed]
E 2004. “Religious Studies.” Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Methodologies,
Paradigms and Sources, Vol.1. Eds. Suad Joseph, et al. Leiden: Brill Academic. [reviewed]
BEd2 2003. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, eds. Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak
on World Religions. Boulder: Westview Press. 327pp. [reviewed]
C 2003. “Introduction.” Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions. Eds. Arvind
Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Boulder: Westview Press. 1-9. [reviewed]
BEd2 2002. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, eds. The Annual Review of Women in
World Religions, Vol. 6. Albany: State University of New York Press. 296 pp. [reviewed]
12
C 2002. “Introduction.” Methodologies in Religious Studies: The Interface with Women’s

Studies. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany: State University of New York Press. ix-xi. [reviewed]
C 2002. Oṃ, the Vedas, and the Status of Women with Special Reference to Srivaisnavism.”
Jewels of Authority: Women and Textual Tradition in Hindu India. Ed. Laurie L. Patton.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 84-121. [reviewed]
C 2002. “Phenomenology and Feminism.” Methodologies in Religious Studies: The Interface
with Women’s Studies. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany: State University of New York Press. 17-
40. [reviewed]
C 2002. “Women and Hinduism.” Women in Indian Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, India. 1-37. [reviewed]
B2 2001. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of
Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen’s University
Press. 650 pp. [reviewed] [see Media below for television and radio interviews ].
E 2000. “Hinduism.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories. London: Routledge.
[reviewed].
C 2000. “Introduction.” Women Saints in World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany: State
University of New York Press. 1-39. [reviewed]
BEd2 1999. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, eds. Annual Review of Women in World
Religions, Vol. 5. Albany: State University of New York Press. 232pp. [reviewed]
BEd2 1999. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, eds. Femininism and World Religions.
Albany: State University of New York Press. 333 pp. [reviewed] [Selected by Choice in 1999
as an Academic Book of Excellence]
C 1999. “Introduction” Feminism and World Religions. Eds. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K.
Young. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1-25. [reviewed]
C 1999. “Women and Religion: In the East” Encyclopedia of Women and World Religion, Vol.
2. Ed. Serenity Young. New York: Macmillan USA. 1058-1060. [reviewed]
J 1998. “The Spirit and the Bride say Come!: Continuing a Hindu-Christian Dialogue.” Journal
of Vais.nava Studies 6.1 (January): 99-116. [reviewed]
Religions, Vol. 4. Albany: State University of New York Press. 192 pp. [reviewed].
J 1995. “Theology Does Help Women's Liberation: Srivaisnavism, a Case Study,” Journal of
Vaisnava Studies 3.4 (Fall): 173-198. [reviewed]
C 1995. “Upholding Norms of Hindu Womanhood: A Study of Hindi Cinema.” Gender, Genre
and Religion: Feminist Reflections. Eds. Morny Joy and Eva K. Neumaier Dargyay.
Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press. 171-198. [reviewed]
Religions, Vol. 3. Albany: State University of New York Press. 192 pp. [reviewed]
BEd2 1993. “Introduction.” Today's Woman in World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany:
State University of New York Press. 1-37. [reviewed]
C 1993. “Women in Hinduism.” Today's Woman in World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma.
Albany: State University of New York Press. 75-135. [reviewed]
13
C 1993. “Introduction.” Religion and Women. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany: State University of
New York Press. 1-38. [reviewed]
C 1992. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, eds. Annual Review of Women in World
C 1991. “Goddesses, Feminists and Scholars.” The Annual Review of Women in World
Religions, Vol. 1. Eds. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Albany: State University of
New York Press. 105-179. [reviewed]
C2 1990. Katherine K. Young and Lily Miller. “Sacred Biography and the Restructuring of
Society: A Study of Anandamaya Ma, Lady-Saint of Modern Hinduism.” Boeings and
Bullock Carts: Indian Civilization in Its Local, Regional and National Aspects, Vol. 22. Ed.
Dhirendra K. Vajpeyi. Delhi: Chanakya Publications. 112-147 [reviewed]
C2 1988. Alaka Hejib and Katherine K. Young. “Sati, Widowhood and Yoga.” Sati: Historical
and Phenomenological Essays. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 73-84.
[reviewed]
C 1987. “Introduction.” Women in World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany: State
C 1987. “Women in Hinduism.” Women in World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Albany: State
C 1983. “From Hindu stridharma to Universal Feminism: A Study of the Women of the Nehru
Family.” Traditions in Contact and Change: Selected Proceedings of the XIV Congress of the
International Association for the History of Religions. Eds. Peter Slater and Donald Wiebe.
Toronto: Sir Wilfrid Laurier Press. 87-105. [reviewed]
J 1983. “Srivaisnava Feminism: Intent or Effect?” Studies in Religion (Sciences Religieuses)
12.2: 183-190. [reviewed]
C 1982. “Why are Hindu Women Traditionally Oriented to Rebirth Rather than Liberation
(moksa)?” Third International Symposium on Asian Studies. Hong Kong: Asian Research
Service. 937-945. [reviewed]
J 1981. “The Buddha's Attitude to Women.” ARC 8.2: 20-25.
B2 [booklet] 1980. Katherine K. Young and Arvind Sharma. Images of the Feminine in India: A
Course Outline Sydney: The University of Sydney. 22 pp. [reviewed]
J 1976. “The Beguiling Simplicity of a Dot.” ARC 6.2: 8-11.
B2 [booklet] 1974. Katherine K. Young and Arvind Sharma. Images of the Feminine - Mythic,
Philosophic and Human in the Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic Traditions: A Bibliography of
Women in India. Chico: New Horizons Press. 36 pp. [reviewed]
In press, under contract, or accepted for publication
B2 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and Fall
of Man (book in press: McGill-Queens University Press). [to be released Fall 2009]
B2 Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young. Transcending Misandry: The Road to Intersexual
Dialogue. McGill-Queens University Press. [accepted].
14
J Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, “Coming of Age as a Villain: What Boys Need to
Know in a Misandric World,” THYMOS: The Journal of Boyhood Studies, ed. Miles Groth
[reviewed]. [forthcoming 2009]
Work in progress
B From Tradition to Liberation: Five Generations of Nehru Women
B2 Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Orientalism and the Study of Hindu Women. [book
manuscript]
B Tilaka: Interpreting the Hindu Woman’s Forehead Dot
B2 Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, The Peaceable Ideal of Manhood
HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM: PUBLICATIONS

R 2008 Book review of R. Cheran, Darshan Ambalavanar, Chelva Kanaganayakam eds. History
and Imagination: Tamil Culture in the Global Context. TSAR Publications, 2007. xii, 202.
$28.95 The University of Toronto Quarterly 78:1 (Winter 2008/2009: Letters in Canada
2007. [reviewed]
C 2006. “Brahmaṇas, Pancaratrins, and the Formation of Srivaisnavism.” Studies in Hinduism,

Vol. 4. Ed. Marion Rastelli. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science Press. 197-261.
J2 2006. Katherine K. Young and Arvind Sharma. “Hindu Marriage.” Ecumenism:
Marriage: Made in Heaven or on Earth” (vol 163 (September 2006) 4-11. [reviewed]
C2 1994. Alaka Hejib and Katherine K. Young. “Etymology as a Bridge Between Text and
Sectarian Context: A Case Study of Parasararabhattar's Commentary on
Srivisnusahasranama.” Hermeneutical Paths to the Sacred Worlds of India. Ed. Katherine K.
Young. Atlanta: Scholar's Press. 222-230. [reviewed]
Bed 1994. Katherine K. Young, ed. Hermeneutical Paths to the Sacred Worlds of India. Atlanta:
Scholar's Press. 242 pp.
C 1993. “The Indian Secular State Under Hindu Attack: A New Perspective on the Crisis of
Legitimation,” Ethical and Political Dilemmas of Modern India. Eds. Ninian Smart and
Shivesh Thaku. New York: St. Martin's (Macmillan) Press. 199-234. [reviewed]
C 1993. “The Meeting of Two Great Traditions: Migration into Tamil Nadu (500-900 C.E.).”
Ethnicity, Identity, Migration: The South Asian Context. Eds. Milton Israel and N.K. Wagle.
University of Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies. 87-104. [reviewed]
J2 1990. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. “The meaning of atmahano janah in Isa
Upanisad 3,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110.4 (October-December): 595-602.
[reviewed]
R 1989. “Foreward.” Shrinivas Tilak. Religion and Aging in the Indian Tradition. Albany: State
University of New York Press. ix-xiii. [reviewed]
R 1988. “Folktales of India (1987) edited by Brenda E.F. Beck, Peter J. Claus, Praphulladatta
Goswami, and Jawaharlal Handoo, eds. Studies in Religion (Sciences Religeuses) 17.1: 124.
J 1985. “Young’s Response to Papers”; “Replies to Young’s Response.” Iskcon Review:
Academic Perspectives on the Hari Krishna Movement. 1.1 (Spring): 29-34, 34-50.
15
J 1983. “Dying for bhukti and mukti: The Srivaisnava Theology of Liberation as a Triumph
Over Death.” Studies in Religion (Sciences Religieuses) 12.4 (Fall): 389-96. [reviewed]
R 1983. “The Structure of the World in Udayana's Realism: A Study of the Laksanavali and the
Kiranavali (1981), by Musashi Tachikawa.” Religious Studies Review 9.1 (January): 90-91.
R 1982. “F. Max Müller and the Rg-Veda: A Study of its Role in his Work and Thought (1980),
by Ronald Neufeldt.” In Journal of the American Academy of Religion: 318.
R 1982. “Lustful Maidens and Ascetic Kings: Buddhist and Hindu Stories of Life (1981), by
Roy C. Amore and Larry D. Shinn.” In Studies in Religion (Sciences Religieuses) .2.2: 223-
24.
J 1982. “The Issue of the Buddha as vedagu with Reference to the Formation of the Dhamma
and the Dialectic with the Brahmins.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies. 5.2: 110-120. [reviewed]
R 1981. “Un Text Tamoul de Devotion Vishnouite: Le Tiruppavai D'antal (1972), by Jean
Filliozat . » In Religious Traditions 4.1: 76-79.
J2 1980. Alaka Hejib and Katherine K. Young. “Kliba on the Battlefield: Towards a
Reinterpretation of Arjuna's Despondency.” Annals: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
61: 2-12. [reviewed]
J 1980. “Conversion in India and North America: Some Reflections.” ARC 8.1: 2-12.
J 1980.“Tirtha and the Metaphor of Crossing Over.” Studies in Religion (Sciences Religieuses)
9.1: 61-69. [reviewed]
R 1979. “Religious Encounters with Death: Insights from the History and Anthropology of
Religions (1977), edited by Frank E. Reynolds and Earle H. Waugh. In Studies in Religion
(Sciences Religieuses) 8.3: 336-37.
R 1977. “The Divine Hierarchy: Popular Hinduism in Central India by Lawrence A. Babb.” In
Studies in Religion (Sciences Religieuses) 6.5: 571-73.
In press or accepted for publication

C The “Non-Brahmin” Srivaisnava Revival: Ritual in Contemporary Tamil Nadu (for a volume
in honour of Fred Clothey: University of Pittsburg).
Work in progress
B Srivaisnava Beloved Places: The Genius of Hindu Cultural Integration (complete
manuscript)
B Non-Brahmin Shrivaishnavism: Religion, Caste, and Politics in Tamilnadu (funded by
SSHRC grant).
B2 Katherine K. Young and Leslie Orr,” Performers as Symbols: Rhetoric, Identity, and Status
in Tamil History (funded by SSHRC).
B2 Leslie Orr and Katherine K. Young, Saivism and Vaisnavism: Comparing Sects in Medieval
Tamilnadu (funded by SSHRC grant).
16
GENERAL TOPICS
C 2000. “TRANSDISCIPLINARITY: Post-modern buzz word or new methods for new
problems.” TRANSDISCIPLINARITY: re CREATING INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE.
Eds. Margaret A. Somerville and David J. Rapport. EOLSS: Oxford. 125-134. [reviewed]
C 1992. “World Religions: A Category in the Making?” Religion in History: The Word, the
Idea, the Reality. Eds. Michel Despland and Girard Vallee. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press. 111-130. [reviewed]
R 1991. “Foreword.” Paul Nathanson. Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth
of America Albany: State University of New York Press. xi-xx.
In Progress
Daniel and Katherine K. Young, eds. What is Religion? Religion in the Courts and the Academy”
[book manuscript]
Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “From Religion to Secularity: A Continuum of

Worldviews” chapter in Daniel Cere and Katherine K. Young, eds. What is Religion? Religion in
the Courts and the Academy” (forthcoming)
CONFERENCES AND SPECIAL LECTURES (subdivided into four: Ethics and Law,
Gender, Hinduism, and Other Topics)
ETHICS AND LAW

2008 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “Gender Equality and Sex Differences: The
Effects on Parents and Children. Paper for conference on “Who is Called a Parent and
Why? An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Core Questions at the Heart of Today’s
Family Debates” University of Virginia. Charlottesville
2008 “Old Age in Asian Art” Proferred paper for 17th International Congress on Palliative Care
(Sept 23-26). Montreal.
2008 Invited Talk for the “Public Policy and Nuclear Threats: Training the Next Generation”
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation” [refused invitation].
2008 “Is a Shared Ethic Possible?” Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of
Religion (CSSR) Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences. Vancouver.
2008 “”Alternative Medicine, Religion, and Spirituality: The Mayo Clinic as a Case Study” for
the symposium Alternative Medicine, Religion, and Spirituality: the Mayo Clinic as a Case
Study.” McGill University. Montreal.
2006. Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto. “Is Medicine Becoming a
Secular Religion?” Invited lecture. Toronto.
2006. Sanjay Kumar and Katherine K. Young, “The Ethical Physician as Spiritual Person: the
Integral Approach of Classical Hindu Medicine.”” Paper presented at the World Congress:
“The World’s Religions After 9/11.” Montreal.
17
2006. “Just War Theory in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam with Special Reference to South
Asia.” Paper presented on the panel “Religion and `Just War’” at the World Congress: The
World’s Religions After 9/11. Montreal.
2006.Organized panel on “The Ethical Physician: Religion, Medical Oaths, Prayers, Narratives,
and Rules” for the World Congress: “The World’s Religions After 9/11.” Montreal.
2006.Organized panel on “Extending Life: Popular Culture, Secular Religion, and World
Religions” for the World Congress: The World’s Religions After 9/11. Montreal.
2005. “Ahimsa, Santi, and Sanatana Dharma: A Comparison of Some Classical and Modern
Concepts.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Asian Studies Association for
panel “Constructing Sanatana Dharma.” Chicago.
2005. “The Institution of Marriage: Mediation of Nature and Culture in Cross-Cultural
Perspective.” Paper presented at the Illuminating Marriage Conference. Kananaskis,
Alberta.
2005. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “Gay Adults v. Children: Rights in
Conflict.” Guest Lecture for the Lord Reading Law Society; the other speakers were
Martin Cauchon, Canada’s former Minister of Justice, and Father John Walsh.
Montreal.
2005. Moderator for one-day (international) conference “The Portrayal of Indian Women in
Western Academia and Media” at the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University.
Montreal.
2003. “Euthanasia in Historical/Cultural Perspective.” Lecture for the West Island Ethics Series.
Montreal.
2003. “Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage.” Paper presented at the conference
“Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Good Arguments in an Era of Rights and
Freedoms.” Ottawa. [based on research with Paul Nathanson]
2003. Respondent for two panels “Bioethics and Religious Implications in Indian Context:
Challenges and Issues” for the conference International Association of the History of
Religions (IAHR). Delhi, India.
2000. “Hindu and Buddhist Medical Ethics.” Paper presented to the History of Medical Ethics
Workshop for authors of the Cambridge History of Medical Ethics. Houston.
2000. “Hinduism and Medical Ethics.” Paper for the Symposium on Hinduism in the Twenty-first
Century (Concordia). Montreal.
1999. “Democracy, Human Rights, and Gender.” Invited lecture at the Universitas
Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Program Magister Studi Islam. Surakarta, Indonesia.
1999. Lecture Series for IAIN Workshop on Religion and Development included “Economics,
Ethics, and the Clash of Civilizations” and “Development and Business Ethics.” Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
1996. “Self-willed Death and Euthanasia in the History of World Religions.” Plenary speaker for
Special all-day Symposium: Searching for the Soul of Euthanasia For the 11th International
Congress on Care of the Terminally Ill. Montreal.
1996. “Racism, Free Speech, and the University.” Invited speaker for the public lecture hosted by
the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. Montreal.
18
1996. “Symposium on Tolerance.” Invited speaker for the Canadian Authors Association,
Montreal branch. Montreal.
1993. “Between Prolonging and Shortening Death: The Search for a Middle Path.” Plenary
address at the Eight Annual Grief Conference. Vancouver.
1993. “Summary of Between Prolonging and Shortening Death: The Search for a Middle Path.”
BCTV, Evening News, 12 November 1993. Television Interview. Vancouver.
1992. “The Biological Revolution: Canadian Churches Reflect on New Reproductive
Technologies.” Series presented to the Continuing Theological Education Programme,
Presbyterian College. Montreal. Lecture 1: Major Ethical Positions (delivered by K. Young;
jointly written with P. Nathanson); Lecture 2: The Canadian Royal Commission on New
Reproductive Technologies: An Update (delivered by K. Young; jointly written with P.
Nathanson); Lecture 3: Canadian Churches Reflect on the New Reproductive Technologies
(K. Young).
1991. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “New Reproductive Technologies: Three Views in
the Public Square.” Lecture at the Toronto Centre for Bioethics (University of Toronto).
Toronto.
1991. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Deconstruction and Ethics: the Rhetoric of
Autonomy, Pluralism and Ideology.” Lecture at the Toronto Centre for Bioethics (University
of Toronto). Toronto.
1991. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Deconstructing Deconstruction: Intellectual and
Ideological Roots of Political Correctness.” Invited lecture for the Canadian Royal
Commission on New Reproductive Technologies addressing the deputies and researchers of
various departments. Toronto.
1991. “Reproductive Rights.” Special speaker at the McGill Alumnae “Choices and Challenges
Seminar.” Montreal.
1990. Invited by the Canadian Government to participate in the “Search Conference, Royal
Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (NRT).” Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
1990. Hosted the Research Team of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technology
and presented with P. Nathanson the Donner Canadian Foundation Project on the NRT.
Montreal.
1990. “The Sanctity of Life: A Hindu Perspective.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Religion, at the panel “Religion and Medicine.” New Orleans.
1989. Discussion of Au claire de l'ovule, at the McGill Pugwash Society. Montreal.
1989. “Regarding the announcement of the Royal Commission to study in vitro, artificial
insemination and surrogacy.” Interview on CBC Radio Noon, live: 15 April 1989. Montreal.
1989. “Regarding the announcement of the Royal Commission to study in vitro, artificial
insemination and surrogacy.” Interview on CKO Radio, aired 28 April and 1 May 1989 in
major cities across Canada.
1989. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “New Reproductive Technologies: Challenges to
Human Identity.” Paper presented to the McGill Associates and the McGill Society of
Montreal. Montreal.
19
1989. Chair of panel “Feminism, Spirituality and Ethics” at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Society for the Study of Religion (CSSR). Laval.
1989. “Abortion.” Interview with Royal Orr and guests on Exchange, CJAD Radio, 12 July 1989.
Montreal.
1989. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Understanding the Implications of New
Reproductive Technologies.” Paper presented at “London '89: The Second International
Conference on Health Law and Ethics.” London, UK.
1989. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Abortion: New Perspectives on an Old Debate.”
Special conference speaker at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association on “Health
Law and Civil Liberties.” Vancouver.
1989. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “NCWC Policy Statement on New Reproductive
Technologies: A Critical Commentary.” Lecture for the Montreal Council of Women.
Montreal.
1989. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Canada's Naked Public Square.” Plenary address
given at Atlantic Human Rights Centre, “National Symposium on Interfaith Dimensions of
Canadian Multiculturalism.” Fredericton, NB.
1989. Medical Ethics Conference. Paper: Reproductive Technologies: The Ethical Issues.
Montreal.
1989. McGill Faculty of Law: Moot Court. Invited speaker: Abortion. Montreal.
1989. Concordia University Lecture: Abortion: Some New Insights. Montreal.
1988. “Conflict Resolution in Hinduism.” Paper presented to the Society for the Scientific Study
of Religion. Chicago.
1987. “Euthanasia as Self-Willed Death: Discussions in the Dharma-sastras and the
Contemporary Debate.” Paper presented to the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference. Leiden,
Netherlands.
GENDER
2009. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young. “By Love Possessed: The Case for Intersexual
Dialogue” for the McGill Psychology Students Society.
2007. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young “Coming of Age as a Villain: What Boys Need to
Know in a Misandric World,” Boy’s and the Boy Crisis. Plenary. Washington D.C. (with
Paul Nathanson)
2007. “The New Double Standard; Misandry and Public Discourse.” Invited lecture. Toronto
Writer’s Centre. Toronto,. With Paul Nathanson.
2006. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men. Invited
lecture. Wagner College. New York City (with Paul Nathanson)
2003. “Representations of Hindu Women in Western Academia.” Paper for the conference
International Association of the History of Religions (IAHR) for the panel “Representations
of Hinduism in Western Academia.” Delhi, India.
20
2003. “The Symbolism and Interpretation of the Dot Worn by Hindu Women.” South Asia
Conference. Madison.
2003. Invited lecture for Wagner College on Spreading Misandry. New York.
2003. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Marriage and Male Identity.” Presented at
the conference “Wars of the Ring: Revisioning Marriage in Postmodern Culture.”
Montreal.
2003. “Man as Inadequate, Evil, or Honorary Woman: Images of Men in Popular culture and the
Implications for Our Times” and “No longer Provider, Protector, Progenitor: The Loss of
Male Identity and the Implications for the Institution of Marriage.” Invited keynote
speaker for the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families. Calgary.
2002. “The Anthropology of Male Bleeding and Birthing Rituals,” and “Are There Lessons to be
Learned from Anthropology? Postmodernism, the Obsolescence of Maleness and
Masculinity, and the Reproductive Revolution.” Invited speaker at the Obstetrics and
Gynecology Conference “New Developments New Boundaries” sponsored by the Faculty of
Medicine, University of Alberta. Banff.
2001. “Contribution of the Field of Religious Studies to Women in Islamic Culture.” Invited
lecture for the Institute of Ismaili Studies. London, UK.
2001. “Antal.” Paper presented at Chennai, India.
2001. IAIN Lecture Series on Gender and Religion (10 lectures). Jakarta, Indonesia.
1999. “What Does the Return of the Goddess Mean for Christianity?” Invited lecture at the
Universitas Kristen Duta Wacana. Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
1998. “Om, the Vedas, and the Status of Women with Special Reference to Srivaisnavism.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Orlando
1997. “Concepts of Masculinity in Cankam (Tamil) Poetry.” Paper presented to the working
group at the Dharma Hinduja Indic Research Centre. Columbia University. New York.
1996. Paper presented to the working group at the Dharma Hinduja Indic Research Centre.
Columbia University. New York.
1996. “Antal: the Female Jesus of Hinduism?” Invited speaker at the Brock Philosophical
Society. Ontario.
1995. Respondent for a panel on “Women and Vedic Authority” at the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Religion. Philadelphia.
1995. “Can Women Utter Mantras with OM: The Srivaisnava Debate.” Invited participant in the
working group at the Dharma Hinduja Indic Research Centre. Columbia University, for the
topic “Gender and the Vedic Tradition.” New York.
1994. “Vaidika Images in the Hindu Epics and their Implications for a Sitz im Leben.” presented
at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Chicago.
1994. “Women in Vedic Ritual.” Paper presented at Conference on Religion in South India.
Walker Valley, New York.
1994. “Women as Ritual Experts in the Tamil Bhakti Tradition.” Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Academy of Religion: Eastern International Region, for panel “Women as
Ritual Experts: Historical and Textual Studies.” Montreal.
21
1994. “Grief and the Crisis of Masculine Identity in Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Plenary address
at the International Conference on Helping the Bereaved Male. London, ON.
1993. “The Pavai Poems: A Study of Gender and Hinduism.” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Washington, DC.
1992. “Women in World Religions: Some Recent Trends,” Plenary address at the Isma`ili
Women's Leadership Conference. Montreal.
1992-91.The Argyle Institute of Human Relations (a series of 6 talks with Paul Nathanson).
Montreal.1) “Introduction to the Masculine Syndrome;” 2) “Beyond Ideology: Intersexual
Dialogue.,” 3) “Masculine Identity in Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspective.,” 4) “The
Rhetoric of Shame: Effects of Feminist Attacks on Masculine Identity.” 5) “Directions for
Future Research.” 6) “Fatherhood in Popular Culture: An Analysis of the Murphy Brown
Controversy.”
1991. “Hindu Militancy and the Women's Issue.” Paper presented to the Centre for South Asian
Studies. Toronto.
1991. “Women and Hinduism.” Invited speaker at the conference “Woman and Religion: A
Feminist Inquiry.” Calgary.
1991. “Teaching about Women and Hinduism.” Paper presented to the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Religion. Kansas City.
1990. “Ramanuja on the Salvation of Women.” Paper presented at the International Conference
on Srivaisnavism (Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute). Bombay.
1990. “The Concept of Tilaka,” and “Sankara on Women.” Papers presented at the Institute for
Oriental Study (Thane: India). Bombay.
1990. “What If No One Wants to Know?: Dilemmas of Reconstructing the Life of a Hindu ‘Lady
Saint’ and Challenging Emic History.” Paper presented at the Berkshire Conference on the
History of Women (Rutgers University). New Jersey.
1990. “Grounding Issues of Gender in Historical Process: the Rise of Kingdoms and Universal
Religions in Comparative Perspective.” Paper presented at the XVIth Congress of the
International Association for the History of Religions. Rome.
1990. “Homosexuality and Religion: A Comparative Prospective,” Paper presented at University
of Toronto. Toronto.
1989. “Some Reflections on Fundamentalism, Hinduism, and Women.” Paper presented at the
CFQOI (Cercle des Femmes du Québec d'Origine Indienne) conference “Fundamentalism,
Social Change, and Women.” Montreal.
1988. “Hindu Widow Burning: Religious Dimensions of Sati.” Paper presented at the Canadian
Centre for Research on Women and Religion. University of Ottawa. Ottawa.
1988. “A General Theory of Women in World Religions. Responses to theory by R. Ruether, J.
Smith, R. Gross, N. Barnes, D. Carmody, T. Kelleher.” Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Academy of Religion. Chicago.
1988. “Gandhi's Contribution to Women's Liberation.” Lecture to the McGill Shastri Advisory
Committee and Bharat Bhavan Foundation. Montreal.
1987. Respondent at conference on the “Mother Goddess: Comparative and Analytical
Perspectives.” Carleton University. Ottawa.
22
1987. “History, Hagiography, and Mythology in The Mormon, Shaker, Chinese, and Hindu
Traditions.” Discussant at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Boston.
1986. “Orthodox Grounds for a Feminist Theology: A Reappraisal of the Bhagavad Gita.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Asian Studies Association. Chicago.
1986. “Antal: The Biography of a Tamil Saint.” Paper presented to The Buck Society. Montreal.
1986. “On the Model of Jaina Sallekhana: Antal's Fast to Death.” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Atlanta.
1985. Antal: God's Slave as She Who Rules.” Paper presented at the International Congress of the
History of Religions (IAHR). Sydney, Australia.
1985. Indira Gandhi.” Public lecture at Bishops University. Sherbrooke.
1982. Sexual Bisection at the Divine-Human Intersection: Reflections on the Hindu Couple as
God and Goddess Incarnate.” Paper presented at the Conference on Religion in South India.
Pittsburgh.
1982. Katherine Young and Lily Miller, “The Popularity of Anandamaya Ma: Lady- Saint of
Modern Hinduism.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of
Religion. New York.
1980. “From Hindu strīdharma to Universal Feminism: A Study of the Women of the Nehru
Family.” Paper presented at the IV International Congress of the International Association for
the History of Religions (IAHR) Winnipeg.
1980. “One Stage, Three Acts: The Life Drama of a Traditional Hindu Woman.” Paper presented
at the Association for Asian Studies. Washington, DC
1979. “Srivaisnava Feminism: Intent or Effect?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Religion. New York.
1979. “Tilaka: The Beguiling Simplicity of a Dot.” Paper presented at Canadian Association of
Sanskrit and Related Studies. Saskatoon.
1978. “Towards Recognition of the Religious Structure of Sati [joint paper].” Paper presented
with Alaka Hejib at the American Oriental Society. Toronto.
1978. “Was the Buddha Misogynist?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Academy of Religion. New Orleans.
1978. “The Classical Indian View of Tolerance as a Mediating Model” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. New Orleans.
1978. Katherine Young and A. Hejib, “Power of the Meek (abala): A Feature of Indian
Feminism.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion.
New Orleans.
HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM
2009 Invited Lecture “Negotiating Śrīvaiṣṇava Identity, Canonizing Place” Interational

Workshop on the Internal and External Chronology of Tamil Bhakti held at Ecole
Française d’Extrême-Orient (Centre of Pondicherry): Pondicherry, India.
23
2009 Invited Lecture “Srivaisnava Reformers in the Nineteenth Century” (Chenna: Srivaisnava
Society)
2009 “From Outside to Inside: Shrivaisnava “Outcastes” Inside Ramanuja’s House.” Tamil
Studies Conference, University of Toronto.
2008 “Changing Srivaisnava Views of Service: a Non-Brahmin Perspective.” Paper for North
American Hindu Association of Dharma Studies (Chicago: in conjunction with the American
Academy of Religion).
2008 Tamil Studies Conference: Changing Views of Tamil Religious Personhood:
The Intertwined Lives of Three Shrivaisnavas. Tamil Studies Conference. “Being Human;
Being Tamil: Personhood, Agency, and Identity” University of Toronto.
2008 Invited Lecture: “Religion, Emotions and Politics in Contemporary Tamilnadu: A Look at
Non-Brahmin Srivaishnavism (Organized by the Cultural Dynamics and Emotions Network
(School of History and Anthropology, Queen’s University Belfast, U.K. and M.O.P.
Vaishnav College for Women, Chennai India.
2008 “Deepak Chopra: Keeping Spiritual Pace with the Times” Paper for American Academy of
Religion Eastern International Region Conference (Montreal)
2007. Keynote speech: Arvind Sharma’s Contribution to Hinduism; Seventeenth International
Congress of Vedanta (Miami Ohio)
2007. “State Formation in the Cankam Period” for the conference “Imagining Collectives:
Continuities, Changes and Contestations” Tamil Studies Conference, University of Toronto.
Toronto.
2007.“Chanting and Singing: Markers of Vaisnava Identities in Tamil Nadu.” American Asian
Studies. Boston.
2007. Plenary speaker, “The `Non-Brahmin’ Srivaisnava Revival.” University of Madras,
Chennai, India.
2006.Negotiating Srivaisnava Identity, Canonizing Place.” South Asia Conference. Madison,
Wisconsin.
2006.“The `Non-Brahmin’ Shrivaishnava Revival: Ritual, Proselytism, and Politics in
Contemporary Tamil Nadu.” University of Pittsburg. Invited lecture. Pittsburg.
2006. “Drummers and Changing Images of Identity: From Cankam to Bhakti Poetry” Tamil
Studies Conference. Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto . Invited lecture.
Toronto.
2005. Katherine Young and Leslie Orr, “Praising, Performing, Recounting: The Evolution of
Tamil Devotional Literature as Canon and Liturgy.” Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Academy of Religion: Eastern International Region for the panel “Performing
Memory: Social, Ritual and Religious Identities in South India.”
2003. “The Image-incarnation: Religion, Philosophy, and Sectarian Politics in the Evolution of
Srivaisnavism.” Invited speaker for the Austrian Academy of Sciences symposium “The
Mutual Influences and Relationship of Visistadvaita and Pancaratra.” Vienna.
2002. “Towards a Global Hindu Dharma.” Paper for additional session at the American Academy
of Religion. Toronto.
24
2002. “Is there a link between the symbolism of Mesopotamian sacred geography and
Hinduism?” Invited speaker for a special three day colloquium organized by M. Witzel, Prof.
of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, which brought together 30 linguists and archeologists to try to
solve some of the problems of ancient Indian history. Cambridge, MA.
2001. “Crossing Over the Ocean to the Other Shore: Are Indic Metaphors and Indian Ocean
Networks Connected?” Invited Paper presented to the Institute of Social and Cultural
Anthropology, Oxford University conference “The Indian Ocean: Trans-regional creation of
Societies and Cultures: Traditions of Learning and Networks of Knowledge.” Oxford, UK.
2001. “Across and Around the Indian Ocean.” Invited speaker for a special three day colloquium
organized by M. Witzel, Prof. of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, which brought together 30
linguists and archeologists to try to solve some of the problems of ancient Indian history.
Cambridge, MA.
2001. “Brahmasastra and the Ethics of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Mahabharata.” Paper
presented at the International Conference on the Mahabharata (Concordia). Montreal.
2000. “Narayana: Supreme God of the Indus Valley Civilization?” Paper presented at Chennai,
India.
2000. “The 108, the 96, the 4, the 2, the 1: Srivaisnava Beloved Places and the Hermeneutics of
Favoritism.” Paper presented at Chennai, India.
2000. “Srivaisnavism and Pilgrimage.” Paper delivered by video. Bombay, India.
2000. Attended the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Nashville.
2000. “Was the Indus Valley Civilization Dravidian? A View from the South” Paper presented to
the International Congress of Asian and North African Studies (ICANAS). Montreal.
2000. Guest speaker at the Guyana Hindu temple. Montreal.
1999. Attended the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute Symposium. Ottawa.
1999. Chair for session at the meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion (CSSR).
Sherbrooke.
1999. Paper given at the Conference on Religion in South India. Raleigh, NC
1999. Invited speaker for a special three day colloquium organized by M. Witzel, Prof. of
Sanskrit and Indian Studies, which brought together 30 linguists and archeologists to try to
solve some of the problems of ancient Indian history. Cambridge, MA.
1998. “Finding Sacred Landscapes in the Stars.” Guest speaker at the University of Quebec at
Montreal, Religion Department. Montreal.
1997. Guest speaker for the Organization of Women of Indian Origin. Montreal.
1996. Attended conference on Youth and Youthfulness in the Hindu Traditions. Cambridge, UK.
1996. Guest of Honour and Speech on the occasion of “Ponkal” delivered to the Saiva
Community of Montreal. Montreal.
1994. “Introduction.” For panel “Review of Diana Eck's Encountering God” at the annual
meeting of the American Academy of Religion: Society for Hindu-Christian Studies.
1994. Katherine Young and Leslie Orr, “Images of Music in the Saiva Bhakti Hymns.” Paper
presented at the International Conference on Saivism. Montreal.
25
1994. Speech on the occasion of “Ponkal” delivered for the Saiva Community of Montreal.
Montreal.
1993. “Planning for the Future: Representing Hinduism in North America in the 21st Century.”
Speech at the Hindu Mission. Montreal.
1993. “Etymology as a Hermeneutical Device in Sanskrit Commentaries.” Paper presented at the
meeting of the Canadian Asian Studies Association. Ottawa.
1992. “A Vedantic Critique of Western Hermeneutics.” Plenary address for the Fourth
International Congress of Vedanta. Miami, OH.
1992. Address and MP for Inaugural Event of the International Foundation for Vedic Education.
New Jersey
1991. “From Hindu Raj to Hindu Tolerance.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Academy of Religion: Eastern International Region. Toronto.
1991. “Tamil Identity as Portrayed in Cankam Literature.” Invited paper for the conference
“Archaeological and Linguistic Approaches: Ethnicity in South Asia.” Toronto.
1990. “The Liberal Sankara: In Support of the Sannyasa and Salvation of Sudras.” Paper
presented at conference “Advaita Vedanta.” Miami, OH. Plenary Session:
1989. “The Classical Indian View of Tolerance and its Relevance for Today's Multiculturalism.”
Paper presented at the conference “Truth and Tolerance” at McGill University. Montreal.
1989. “The Meeting of Two Great Traditions: Migration Into Tamil Nadu (500 to 900 C.E.).”
Invited paper for the Conference on South Asian Diaspora: Centre for South Asian Studies,
University of Toronto. Toronto.
1988. Chair of panel at conference “Radhakrishnan.” Miami, OH.
1988. “Reciprocal Illumination in the Context of Secularism.” Paper presented at the meeting of
the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion. Windsor.
1988. Katherine Young and Leslie Orr, “The Symbol of the Bard (Panar-) in Tamil
Hagiographies.” Paper presented to the Research Triangle, Conference on Religion in South
India. North Carolina.
1988. “Imaging the Land in Tamil Poetry: Clues to the Early History of South India.” Paper
presented at the Department of Geography, McGill University. Montreal.
1987. Katherine Young and Arvind Sharma, “The Meaning of atmahano janah in Isa Upanisad
3.” Presented at the meeting of the American Oriental Society. Los Angeles.
1987. “The Religions of India.” Lecture at the Shastri Summer Program. Montreal.
1987. “The Religions of India: Appreciation at the End of the Millennium.” Invited lecture at the
National Library of Canada and the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute. Ottawa.
1986. Katherine Young and Leslie Orr, “Just Who is Serving the God and Singing and Dancing in
the Bhakti Hymns of the Alvars and Nayanmars?” Paper presented at the Conference on
Religion in South India. Hyannis, MA.
1985. “Is Indian Cross-Cousin Marriage Proto-Dravidian?” Paper presented to the
Canadian Association of Sanskrit and Related Studies. Montreal.
26
1985. Chairs of the panel “Perspectives on the Bhagavad Gita,” at the meeting of the Canadian
Asian Studies Association. Montreal.
1985. Chair of panel “Sanskrit Sastras,” at the meeting of the Canadian Association of Sanskrit
and Related Studies. Montreal.
1985. Chair of panels at the meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion. Montreal.
1985. Katherine Young and Leslie Orr, “Syncretism and Displacement: A Study of the Figure of
the panar in Tamil Poetry.” Conference on Hindu Syncretism. Ottawa.
1982. Chair for panel “Philosophy and Religion: The Visistadvaitic School.” Conference of the
Canadian Association of Sanskrit and Related Studies. Ottawa.
1982. “Dying for bhukti and mukti: The Srivaisnava Apprehension of Death.” Paper presented for
the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion. Ottawa.
1982. Discussant for panel “A Current Look at Iskcon,” at the annual meeting of the American
Academy of Religion. New York.
1981. “Srivaisnava Hermeneutics and Heuristics for Comprehensive Culmination.” Paper
presented to the Canadian Asian Studies Association. Halifax.
1981. “The Srivaisnava Concept of Pilgrimage.” Respondent to plenary address by Dr. Charles
Long at the conference “Pilgrimage, The Human Quest.” Pittsburgh.
1981. “The Ontological Status of the Image (arca): A Srivaisnava Perspective.” Paper presented
at the conference “Religion in South India.” Philadelphia.
1980. Katherine Young and A. Hejib, “Etymology as a Device for Commentarial Convenience: a
Study of Parasarabhat.t.ar's Commentary on Srivisnusahasranama, 640-644.” Paper presented
at the Canadian Association for Sanskrit and Related Studies. Montreal
1979. “Was the Buddha really vedagu (well-versed in the Veda) as claimed in the Pali Canon?”
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. New York.
1979. “Tirtha: The Aquatic Gateway.” Paper presented at the Canadian Asian Studies
Association. Guelph.
1978. Katherine Young and A. Hejib, “Hermaphrodite on the Battlefield: Towards a Reinter-
pretation of Arjuna's Despondency.” Paper presented at the All India Oriental Congress.
Poona, India.
1978. “A Reconsideration of Ramanuja's Position on arcavatara with Special Reference to
Bhagavad Gita 4:11.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of
Religion. New Orleans.
GENERAL TOPICS
2008 “Definition Religion: A View from the Academy: Keynote speech for the “What is
Religion?” Symposium, Faculty of Religious Studies. McGill University. Montreal.
2007. One of three keynote speakers: “Religion, Rights, and the State:” For the Religion
Pluralism, Politics, and God” Conference. McGill University. Montreal.
2001. Series of lectures and classes at The Elijah School (three weeks). Summer program “Saints
in World Religions.” Jerusalem, Israel.
27
2000. Invited speaker at the conference “Encounter of Civilizations” at Carleton University.

Ottawa.
1999. “Good Governance: A Workable Solution for Indonesia?” Attended workshop. Montreal.
1992. “Graduate Education in Canada.” Report to the American Academy of Religion Special
Topics Forum on “Graduate Education in Religion: Setting the Agenda for the 90s and
Beyond.” San Francisco.
1989. “World Religions: A Category in the Making?” Invited paper presented at the McMaster
conference “Religion in History: The Word, the Idea, the Reality.” Hamilton, ON.
1985. “Hidden Agendas and the State of the Art: Should Comparative Religion be Taught in
Indian Schools?” Conference at McGill University. Montreal.
1981. Representative of McGill Faculty of Religious Studies at the Council of Graduate Studies
at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. San Francisco.
28
Index of Past Testimony
• Varnum v. Brien, No. CV-5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. 2007).

Index of Material Considered
1. Don S. Browning et al, eds., In Sex, Marriage, and Family in World Religions (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2006)
2. Declaration of Katherine Young, PhD., as Expert Witness for Defendant, Varnum et al. v.
Brien, No. CV 5965 (Polk County, IA)
3. Declaration of Paul Nathanson, PhD., as Expert Witness for Defendant, Varnum et al. v.
Brien, No. CV 5965 (Polk County, IA)
4. Defendant-Intervenors’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, and

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,
Perry et al. v. Schwarzenegger et al., No. 09-2292 (N.D. Cal. filed May 22, 2009)
5. Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard P. Appelbaum, Introduction to

Sociology, 4th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004)
6. Rita M. Gross, “The Householder and the World-Renunciant: Two Modes of Sexual
Expression in Buddhism” in Marriage Among the Religions of the World, ed. Arlene
Anderson Swidler (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990)
7. David E. Gunn, Chris Barrigar, and Katherine K. Young, eds., Religion and Law in the
Global Village (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000)
8. Halpern v. Canada (A.G.) (2003) O.A.C. 172
9. Lester Kurtz, Gods in the Global Village: The World's Religions in Sociological
Perspective (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995)
10. Elizabeth Marquardt, The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash
between Adult Rights and Children’s Needs (New York: Institute for American Values,
2006)
11. Paul Nathanson, Pop Goes the Family: Marriage in Popular Culture
12. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, “On Biology and Destiny,” Ecumenist 27.2
(1989)
13. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of
Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,
2001)
14. Vernon Reynolds and Ralph Tanner, The Biology of Religion (London: Longman House
1983)
15. W.H.R. Rivers, "Marriage," in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings,
vol. 8 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915)
16. Shelby Steele, “Selma to San Francisco? Same-Sex Marriage Is Not a Civil Rights Issue,"
20 March 2004, Opinion Journal
17. Bruce G. Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003)
18. Edith Turner and Pamela R. Frese, "Marriage," in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea
Eliade, vol. 9 (New York: Macmillan, 1987)
19. Katherine K. Young, “The Institution of Marriage: Mediation of Nature and Culture in
Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Chapter for a volume entitled The Conjugal Bond:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Institution of Marriage edited by Daniel Cere
[under review]
20. Katherine Young, "Transdisciplinarity: Postmodern Buzz Word or New Methods for
New Problems?" in Transdisciplinarity: Recreating Integrating Knowledge, ed. Margaret
A. Somerville and David J. Rapport (Oxford: EOLSS, 2000)
21. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Clearing the Air: The Spurious Claims of
Those who Want to Redefine Marriage
22. Katherine K. Young and Arvind Sharma, “Hindu Marriage,” Ecumenism 163 (September
2006): 4-11.
23. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Interfaith Etiquette in a Multireligious Society,
in TOWARDS A CODE OF ETHICS: INTERFAITH DIMENSIONS OF CANADIAN
MULTICULTURALISM (Abdul Lodhi et al. eds. 1990)
24. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “Redefining Marriage or Deconstructing

Society: a Canadian Case Study.” Journal of Family Studies (Australia). Vol 13 issue 2
(November 2007)
25. Katherine K. Young, "The Classical Indian View of Tolerance with Special Reference to
Tamil Epic Cilappatikaram," in Truth and Tolerance (Montreal: Faculty of Religious
Studies, McGill University, 1990)
26. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, The Future of an Experiment, in Divorcing
Marriage 41 (Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow, eds., 2004)
27. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (New York:
Portland House, 1989).
28. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, Gender Equality and Sex Difference: The
Effects on Fathers and Children (2009).
29. Katherine Young, Definition of “Transdidciplinarity”, in Transdisciplinarity: Recreating

Integrated Knowledge (Margaret Somerville and David J. Rapport, eds)
30. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “The Future of an Experiment” in Divorcing
Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiment, ed. Daniel
Cere and Douglas Farrow (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004)
31. Susanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on

Human Sexuality (New Haven: HRAS press, 1985)
PERRY, et al., CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
v.
DECLARATION OF
LOREN MARKS,
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al. AS EXPERT WITNESS FOR
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS
EXPERT REPORT OF LOREN MARKS
Introduction
1. I will address the question: Based on available social science that meets
established standards, is the biological, marriage-based family the ideal structure for child
outcomes?
Qualifications
2. I am the Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professor in the
College of Agriculture in the Division of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences at
Louisiana State University. I have published or have in press over forty peer-reviewed
articles and chapters on topics relating to family and family science. Additionally, I have
given over forty refereed or invited presentations, including many at
national/international conferences such as the National Council on Family Relations and
the Society for Research on Child Development. Finally, I am a reviewer for thirteen
peer-reviewed journals, including Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, Family
Relations, Fathering, the Journal of Child and Family Studies, the Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, the Journal of Family Theory and Review, the Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, the Journal of Marriage and Family, and the Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology.
3. In 2008, I received the LSU Rainmaker Award for being one of the Top
100 LSU Research Faculty. In 2005, I received the Jack Shand Research Award from the
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. I received the Alumni Association
Outstanding Teacher Award from the LSU School of Human Ecology in both 2004 and
2008, and I recently received the 2009 LSU College of Agriculture Sedberry
Undergraduate Teacher of the Year Award. I received 2004 sectional Paper of the Year
Award the National Council on Family Relations. Most recently, I was honored with an
endowed professorship (although I am still only an associate professor in rank)—the
1
Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professorship in the LSU College of
Agriculture.
4. I hold a Bachelor of Science in family sciences and a Master of Science in
family sciences and human development from Brigham Young University, and a
Doctorate of Philosophy in family studies from the University of Delaware. The courses
I taught while at Delaware included Introduction to Community and Family Services,
Foundations of Family Studies, and Emerging Lifestyles: Relationships and Diversity.
5. Since 2002, I have been a member of the faculty of the Division of
Family, Child, and Consumer Services at Louisiana State University. For the past eight
academic years, I have taught undergraduate courses in, among other topics, Family
Dynamics, Family Resource Management, Marriage and Family Relationships, and
Family Life Education. During the same time, I have taught graduate courses in
Qualitative Research Methods, Contemporary Family, and Theories of Family Science.
6. For my work in this matter, I am being compensated at a rate of $200 per
hour.
Biological, Marriage-Based Parenting and Child Outcomes
7. In the August 2009 issue of Journal of Marriage and Family, a leading
family sociology journal, an article title reads “Adolescents with Nonresident Fathers:
Are Daughters More Disadvantaged than Sons?”1 This title reflects at least two points
central to my report. First, most sociologists are aware of recurring findings that children
(male and female) who are not living in a biological, marriage-based (hereafter “intact”)
family are at heightened risk for problems in several areas of critical societal-level
concern, including, but not limited to: (a) health, mortality, and suicide risks, (b) drug
and alcohol abuse, (c) criminality and incarceration, (d) intergenerational poverty, (e)
education and/or labor force contribution, and (f) sexual activity and early childbearing.
The ideal way to study these outcomes is across time and into adolescence and young
adulthood—one-time, cross-sectional studies of younger children tell us significantly less
about these core issues of concern because most of them do not emerge until adolescence.
As I will document in this paper, each of the critical aforementioned concerns has been
documented in rigorous studies with large probability samples.
8. Health, mortality, and suicide risks in intact and non-intact families.
Being born to an unmarried mother is correlated with a 50% higher rate of infant
mortality.2 Being raised outside of marriage and residential fatherhood is associated with
heightened risks to physical health, mental health, and mortality. For example, a tripling
of the suicide rate among teens and young adults over the last 50 years, motivated a study
which found that the “most explanatory variable…is the increased share of youths living
in homes with a divorced parent.” This change accounts for up to “two-thirds of the
increase” in suicide.3
9. Linda Waite, a leading Demographer and former president of the
Population Association of America, has reviewed scores of mortality and health related
1
Mitchell et al., 2009
2
Gaudino et al., 1999; Siegel et al., 1996
3
Wilcox et al., 2005, p. 28; Cutler et al., 2000
2
studies and has concluded that marriage correlates with a variety of measurable health
and protective benefits that extend to children, women, and men.4 A recent related study
in Sweden, where nonmarital childbearing and rearing are normative, nevertheless found
that male youth in single-parent homes were more than 50% more likely to die from
suicide, accidents, or addiction—and that females and males alike were more than 50%
as likely to struggle with mental illness, suicide, and alcohol and drug abuse.5
10. Drug and alcohol abuse in intact and non-intact families. The same
heightened risk of drug use and abuse documented in Sweden during adolescence (as
high as two to three times as high) has also been found in single-parent U.S. homes.6 This
finding holds even after controlling for race, family income, and gender.7
11. The connection between marriage and lower drug and alcohol abuse rates
influences children in multiple respects. First, married mothers and fathers have
significantly lower rates of illegal drug and alcohol use than single adults.8 This means
that risks of damage to a fetus in utero are lower (e.g., Fetal Alcohol Syndrome)—and
that infant mortality rates after birth decrease.9
12. Second, longitudinal research by Bachman and colleagues indicates that
marriage helps change several self-destructive tendencies. Waite and Gallagher report
decreases in cocaine, alcohol, tobacco use that are particularly sharp among married
men.10 Notably, the trends toward lower drinking tend to reverse for men after a
divorce.11
13. The marital influence on drinking is not solely male, however. In
connection with problem drinking, a longitudinal study by Horwitz and colleagues found
that getting married led to more significant declines in women’s problem drinking than
men’s.12 The same study noted that both wives and husbands who report good
relationship quality report fewer problems with alcohol and lower depression. Lower
problem drinking among married adults also holds for African Americans and Latinos.13
In sum, marriage and marital quality are both correlated with lower use of alcohol.
14. Relatively low rates of drug use and abuse by married parents provide
healthier models for children to emulate. However, this is not the only alcohol/drug
connection to child outcomes and well-being. Decreases or cessation in alcohol
consumption are particularly significant because an estimated 65-80% of child abuse is
alcohol related.14
15. Marriage, when combined with biological parenting, appears to offer
protective benefits for drug use and abuse for children and adolescents in addition to the
4
Waite, 1995
5
Weitoft et al., 2003; Wilcox et al., 2005
6
Flewelling & Bauman, 1990
7
Johnson, 1996; Wilcox et al., 2005
8
Bachman et al. 1997; Simon, 2002
9
Bachman, 1997
10
Waite & Gallagher, 2000
11
Waite & Gallagher, 2000
12
Horwitz et al., 1996
13
Schoenborn, 2004; Contrast with teen-based finding of little difference in Blackmon et al., 2005
14
Burger & Youkeles, 2000; Kroll & Taylor, 2000
3
parental benefits discussed above. Flewelling and Bauman found that teens in intact
families were less likely than those from single-parent homes to use alcohol or tobacco—
but that teens from stepfamilies were the most likely to drink or smoke.15 In a recent
related review, Wilcox and colleagues state that “teens living with both biological
parents are significantly less likely to illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco” themselves.16
16. Criminality and incarceration in intact and non-intact families. In addition
to marriage serving as an apparent buffer against drug and alcohol use, there also appear
to be protective effects in connection with crime. Waite and Gallagher summarize, “Both
divorced and unwed parenting dramatically increase the risk that a child will get into
trouble with the law…[and] commit more delinquent acts.”17 Manning and Lamb
similarly found that children from cohabiting families were 122% more likely to be
suspended or expelled from school than those from intact families.18 In another
examination of early criminality and delinquency, Rickel and Langer found that children
who were residing with their biological fathers were least involved in delinquent
behavior, while children with stepfathers fared worst. Single-parented children fell in
between.19
17. Moving to more serious offenses, a recent study by Harper and
McLanahan found that in connection with criminal activity and subsequent incarceration
between the ages of 15-30, single-parented males are at twice the risk of those from intact
families.20 In their summary of the literature, Kamark and Galston concluded that:
The relationship [between family structure and crime] is so strong that
controlling for family configuration [intact versus non-intact], erases the
relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime.
This conclusion shows up again and again in the literature.21
18. But why the strong link between intact (biological, marriage-based)
families and lower crime? Waite and Gallagher offer a partial explanation:
The social capital created by married families benefits not only the
children of that marriage, but other kids in the neighborhood too. The risk
that a teen will engage in juvenile crime…is heavily influenced not just by
whether or not his own parent is married, but whether or not he lives in a
neighborhood where single-parent families are common.22
Not only are children outside of intact families more likely to engage in crime, they are
far more likely to be victims of crimes, including child abuse. For example, Margolin
15
Flewelling & Bauman, 1990
16
Wilcox et al., 2005, p. 25 (emphasis added); See also Johnson, 1996.
17
Waite & Gallagher, 2000, p. 134
18
Manning & Lamb, 2003
19
Rickel & Langer, 1985; See also Popenoe, 1996
20
Harper & McLanahan, 2004; Also, in connection with the Black population, sociologist Robert Sampson
(1995) states, “The data clearly reveal that black family disruption has large effects on black robbery and
murder” (cf. Blackmon et al., 2005, p. 19).
21
Kamark & Galston, 1990, pp. 14-15
22
Waite & Gallagher, 2000, p. 129
4
indicated that “mother’s boyfriends committed 27 times more child abuse than their hours
in child care would lead us to predict.”23
19. Intergenerational poverty in intact and non-intact families. Another risk of
growing up outside of an intact family is economic. Economist and Nobel laureate
George Akerlof has argued that from a financial perspective, children and society both
win when men father responsibly and provide for their own. Akerlof summarizes:
There are noticeable differences between the lifestyle of married and
unmarried men. Married men are more attached to the labour force; they
have less substance abuse, they commit less crime…have better health,
and are less accident prone. 24
Each of the factors outlined have personal, familial, and societal economic impact.
20. Census data indicate that marriage-based Black households have more
than twice the income and twenty times as much net worth than single households.25 U.S.
children in nonmarried households are nearly four times more likely to experience
poverty (81% versus 22% in married households) and nearly five times (50% versus
10%) as likely to experience “dire poverty”—an income of less than half of the poverty
line.26
21. Following her analysis of a data set of 35,938 children—“arguably the
largest…nationally representative survey of U.S. children and their parents,”27—Susan
Brown emphasized, “The findings of this study…demonstrate the importance of
separating children and adolescents.” She explains:
Although the outcomes of children (6-11 years old) in cohabiting
families…are worse…than those of children in two-biological-parent
married families, much of this difference…is economic…. In contrast,
regardless of economic and parental resources, the outcomes of
adolescents (12-17 years old) in cohabiting families…are worse…than
those…in two-biological-parent married families.28
In short, outcomes of children in cohabiting families went from poor in childhood to
worse in adolescence, relative to children with married, biological parents.
22. Significantly, the ties between marriage and economics are not only
household concerns, they are multi-generational. Blackmon and colleagues conclude that
“there is strong evidence that the family structure of one generation plays an important
role in shaping the family structure and well-being of the next.”29 Phrased differently,
“marriage and wealth represent two kinds of social capital that are transmitted from one
23
Margolin, 1992, p. 546 (emphasis added)
24
Akerlof, 1998, p. 298
25
Blackmon et al., 2005; Oliver & Shapiro, 1997
26
Rank & Hirschl, 1999; Wilcox et al., 2005
27
Brown, 2004, p. 355
28
Brown, 2004, p. 364 (emphasis added)
29
Blackmon et al., 2005, p. 25; See also Lichter et al., 2003.
5
generation to the next”30—a finding that holds in another large, representative U.S. study
across three generations.31 Further, economic advantage carries with it educational
benefits.
23. Education and/or labor force contribution in intact and non-intact
families. McLanahan and Sandefur indicate that “perhaps the most obvious way in which
income loss affects [poor] children…is by lowering the quality of the schools they
attend.”32 Subsequently, school quality correlates with graduation rates. Based on the
NLSY—a nationally representative and longitudinal study of about 14,000 youth—
McLanahan and Sandefur found “an 18 percentage point difference in dropout rates for
girls in one- [versus] two-parent families…[and] a 15 percentage point difference for
boys” and that “children who grow up apart from a parent are disadvantaged in many
ways relative to children who grow up with both parents.”33 Namely, “they are less likely
to graduate from high school and college [and] they are more likely to become teen
mothers.”34 Manning and Lamb similarly found that adolescents from single-parent
homes are 46% more likely to have low grades than those from intact families.35
24. Among African Americans, marriage-based households are correlated
with a higher likelihood of an A average in high school,36 significantly higher college
educational aspirations,37 and higher test scores.38 Sophisticated analyses of a
representative sample of 2,500+ Black students also found that those from two-parent
households have significantly higher test scores.39
25. In connection with educational and occupational outcomes in the general
population, Amato summarized the relevant U.S. research by stating:
Specifically, compared with children who grow up in stable, two-parent
families, children born outside marriage reach adulthood with less
education, earn less income, have lower occupational status, and are more
likely to be idle (that is, not employed and not in school).40
26. In a longitudinal, nationally representative sample, Allison and
Furstenberg similarly found that divorce was related to lower academic achievement,
although the effects were not large.41 Similarly, in a longitudinal study of U.K. children
of divorce, Cherlin and colleagues found that divorce may harm educational achievement
and social development in ways that are not discernible until children “try to enter the
labor market, marry, or have children of their own.”42 In an earlier study of the sample
30
Blackmon et al., 2005, p. 24; Musick & Mare, 2004. For discussion regarding how growing up in a
single-parent family is especially hard on black children economically, see Page & Stevens, 2005.
31
Amato & Cheadle, 2005
32
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, p. 33
33
34
35
Manning & Lamb, 2003
36
Phillips & Asbury, 1993
37
Heiss, 1996
38
Teachman et al., 1998
39
Battle, 1998
40
Amato, 2005, p. 78
41
Allison & Furstenberg, 1989
42
Cherlin et al., 1998; cf. Lansford, 2009, p. 141
6
(n=17,414), only small differences were noted between children from divorced versus
intact homes at age 23.43 However, at age 33, the gap had widened over time.44 The
deleterious outcomes were not fully apparent until middle adulthood. Similarly, a
nonpartisan Child Trends report states:
Divorce is linked to academic and behavior problems among children,
including depression, antisocial behavior, impulsive/hyperactive behavior,
and school behavior problems. [However], mental health problems linked
to marital disruption have also been identified among young adults.45
27. Many of the outcomes I have addressed would not have been captured in
studies of preadolescent children. Indeed, one of McLanahan and Sandefur’s take-home
messages from studying four nationally representative data sets (20,000+ total
participants) across several years was “that children raised apart from one of their parents
are less successful in adulthood than children raised by both parents.”46 Again and again,
we see that some of the developmental effects of being raised in a nonmarital or disrupted
family become more pronounced, or at least more measurable, during later adolescence
and young adulthood.47
28. Sexual activity and early childbearing in intact and non-intact families.
Early sexual activity can have effects that ripple through the life course. In their book-
length study of divorce and children, Amato and Booth cite four separate studies, from
four different groups of researchers who conclude that children from divorced families
tend to: (a) become sexually active at younger ages, and (b) have more sexual partners
than adolescents from intact families.48 These two trends carry with them an additional
share of critical concerns, including heightened risk of sexually transmitted disease,
pregnancy, and nonmarital childbearing.
29. In a more recent 2005 review, Amato states that “differences in well being
between children with divorced [parents] and children with continuously married parents
persist well into adulthood,” including “an increased risk of having a nonmarital birth.”49
More specifically, McLanahan and Sandefur (based on PSID data) found that the teen
birth rate among daughters of single parents was 31% versus 14% of daughters from
continuously married parents.50
30. One of the better related studies to date is a 2003 Child Development
article entitled “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual
43
Chase-Lansdale et al., 1995; cf. Lansford, 2009, p. 142
44
Cherlin et al., 1998
45
Moore et al, 2002, p. 1 (emphasis added)
46
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, p. 134 (emphasis added); Amato (1991) found this to be true with
subjective well-being during adulthood as well.
47
Based on 25-year study (with a non-representative clinical sample), Wallerstein and colleagues (2001)
state, “Contrary to what we have long thought, the major impact of divorce does not occur during
childhood or adolescence. Rather, it rises in adulthood as serious romantic relationships move center stage.
When it comes time to choose a life mate and build a new family, the effects of divorce crescendo” (p.
xxix). This point underscores the need for adolescent and young adult research.
48
Amato & Booth, 2000, p. 107.
49
Amato, 2005, pp. 77-78
50
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994
7
Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?” Based on two national longitudinal samples, one in
the U.S. and one in New Zealand, Bruce Ellis and colleagues report:
A widely held assumption is that it is not father absence per se that is
harmful to children but the stress associated with divorce…loss of an adult
male income and so on. The current research suggests that, in relation to
daughters’ sexual development, the social address of father presence is
important in its own right and not just as a proxy for its many correlates….
In conclusion, father absence was an overriding risk factor for early
sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. Conversely, father presence was
a major protective risk factor against early sexual outcomes, even if other
risk factors were present.51
31. Sexual activity and nonmarital childbearing are the concluding examples
of critical societal concerns that I will address. We now move to a brief discussion of
stepfamilies.
32. Are stepfamilies the equivalent of intact families? Most of the studies
reviewed to this point compare intact families with post-divorce and/or single-parent
families. Given the child outcome advantages associated with an intact (marriage-based,
biological) family, we might ask how stepfamilies compare. Amato recently summarized:
Studies consistently indicate…that children in stepfamilies exhibit more
problems than do children with continuously married parents and about
the same number of problems as do children with single parents.52
33. McLanahan & Sandefur conclude:
Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are
worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with
both of their biological parents…regardless of whether the resident parent
remarries.53
34. A nonpartisan Child Trends report states that, like children in single-
parent homes,
Children growing up with stepparents also have lower levels of well-being
than children growing up with biological parents. Thus, it is not simply the
presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two
biological parents that seems to support children’s development.54
35. Returning to stepfamilies, I earlier reported that single-parented males
between the ages of 15-30, are at twice the risk of those from intact families to engage in
51
Ellis et al., 2003, p. 818 (emphasis added)
52
Amato, 2005, p. 80; See also McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, p. 144: “Children in stepfamilies do just as
poorly, on average, as children in single-mother families.”
53
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, p. 1 (emphasis in original)
54
Moore et al., 2002, pp. 1-2
8
criminal activity and to be incarcerated. However, the same study found that stepfathered
boys are at even greater risk (2.5 times the rate of boys from intact homes).55
36. Stepfathered daughters face a heightened risk of incestuous abuse—more
than seven times higher than in intact families—a study of 930 San Francisco women
found. Specifically, the rates were one in six for stepdaughters compared to one out of
every 40 biological daughters. Further, almost twice as many cases were “very serious”
in stepfamilies (47% versus 26%).56 A study by Wilson and Daly found not seven-fold
but 40 times higher child abuse statistics among Canadian preschool children of step-
versus intact families.57 In a 2008 book-length review of the crime literature, they report,
“Stepparenthood per se remains the single most powerful risk factor for child abuse that
has yet been identified.”58
37. Blackmon and colleagues’ conducted an extensive review of more than
120 studies on African-American marriage and concluded:
For African American children, parental marriage produces important
benefits. Black children of married parents typically enjoy better infant
health, receive better parenting, are less delinquent, have fewer behavioral
problems, have higher self-esteem, are more likely to delay sexual
activity, and have moderately better educational outcomes. These findings
almost certainly reflect more than mere correlations: Marriage itself
appears to be contributing strongly to better outcomes for Black
children.59
38. Returning to the general population, a large, national longitudinal study by
Zill and colleagues followed children into young adulthood found that among intact
families, only 29% of young adults reported a poor relationship with their fathers, while
65% of children from divorced families did.60 The same study found that remarriage and
stepfamily life was correlated with an even further drop in father-child relationship
quality, as 70% of young adults from stepfamilies reported poor relationships with their
fathers. Amato and Afifi found that “the feeling of being caught between parents” into
young adulthood continued to harm many parent-child relationships.61
39. In connection with father-child involvement, according to leading family
sociologists, “many men appear to view fatherhood as a package deal, accepting
responsibility for children only as long as they are married to the mother.”62 In their
55
Harper & McLanahan, 2004; Also, in connection with the Black population, sociologist Robert Sampson
(1995) states, “The data clearly reveal that black family disruption has large effects on black robbery and
murder” (cf. Blackmon et al., 2005, p. 19).
56
Russell, 1984
57
Wilson & Daly, 1987; cf. Popenoe, 1996
58
Daly & Wilson, 2008
59
Blackmon et al., 2005, p. 54, (emphasis in original); Please note, however, that the researchers are again
referring to marriage between the biological father and mother.
60
Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993; See also Aquilino, 1994, for similar findings.
61
Amato & Afifi, 2006, p. 222
62
Amato & Booth, 2000, p. 68. This idea was attributed Frank Furstenberg and has been made numerous
times since. See also Hofferth & Anderson, 2003, for findings emphasizing the influence of marriage.
9
review of research on father-mother-child relationships, Doherty and colleagues (1998)

add a positive correlate of this finding:
We conclude that, in practice, the kind of mother-father relationship most
conducive to responsible fathering in contemporary U.S. society is a
caring, committed, collaborative marriage. Outside of this arrangement,
substantial barriers stand in the way of active, involved fathering.63
40. Remarriage, for biological children, tends to correlate with small but
additive harms to the relationship with the biological father. For children, remarriage is
not the equivalent of marriage in terms of father-child relationship quality, nor in terms of
other outcomes.64
41. When biological fatherhood and marriage are combined, research
indicates that children tend to fare better, at least in part because married fathers tend to
have better relationships with the mothers of their children than fathers in marriage
alternatives.65 Conversely, without marriage, paternal ties are significantly more tenuous,
fragile, and at risk.66 When these ties weaken67 or are cut, children are at elevated risk—
particularly during adolescence.68
Conclusion
42. First: Based on available social science that meets established standards,
the biological, marriage-based (intact) family69 is associated with better child outcomes
than nonmarital, divorced, or step-families.70 Comparative advantages are evident in
connection with critical societal concerns including, but not limited to: (a) health,
mortality, and suicide risks, (b) drug and alcohol abuse, (c) criminality and incarceration,
(d) intergenerational poverty, (e) education and/or labor force contribution, and (f) early
childbearing.
43. Second: The above outcome issues of critical societal concern are not
fully apparent until adolescence and adulthood.71
44. Most of the studies I have cited in this report are rigorous, based on large
probability samples, and include systematically sampled comparison groups. Further,
many of them are longitudinal. There are hundreds of others that could be cited.72
However, without belaboring the issue, sufficient data have been presented from
mainstream scholars to underscore the above points that: (1) The intact family is the
ideal context for these child outcomes,73 and (2) In many cases, these outcomes of critical
63
Doherty et al., 1998, p. 286
64
Amato & Booth, 2000
65
Nock, 1998
66
Blankenhorn, 1995; Doherty et al., 1998; Popenoe, 1996
67
Booth & Amato, 2001; Jekielek, 1998
68
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Moore et al., 2002; See also Amato & Booth, 2000.
69
Literally hundreds of additional studies could be cited to further illustrate this point. Wilcox et al. (2005)
cite well over 200 high quality studies that indicate “Why Marriage Matters.” Blackmon et al. (2005) cite
120+ studies on African American marriage alone.
70
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, p. 144; Daly & Wilson, 2008.
71
Among many other examples, see Aquilino, 1994, 1996
72
See footnote 41.
73
Naturally, there are exceptions including high-conflict or abusive marriages.
10
References
Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Impact of childhood family disruption on young adults’

relationships with parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 295-313.
Aquilino, W. S. (1996). The life course of children born to unmarried mothers:
Childhood living arrangements and young adult outcomes. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58, 293-310.
Akerlof, G. (1998). Men without children. Economic Journal, 108, 287-309.
Allison, P. D., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1989). How marital dissolution affects children:
Variations by age and sex. Developmental Psychology, 25, 540-549.
Amato, P. (1991). Parental absence during childhood and depression in later life.
Sociological Quarterly, 32, 543-556.
Amato, P. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and
emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15, 75-96.
Amato, P., & Booth, A. (2000). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family
upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Amato, P., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s
relations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family,
68, 222-235.
Bachman, J. G., et al. (1997). Smoking, drinking and drug abuse in young adulthood.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Battle, J. (1998). What beats having two parents?: Educational outcomes for African-
American students in single- versus dual-parent families. Journal of Black
Studies, 28, 783-801.
Blackmon, L., Clayton, O., Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., & Roberts, A. (2005). The
consequences of marriage for African Americans: A comprehensive literature
review. New York: Institute for American Values.
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America. New York: Harper.
Booth, A., & Amato, P. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce
well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 197-212.
Burger, W. R., & Youkeles, M. (2000). Human services in contemporary America.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Cherlin, A. J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on
mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239-
249.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2008). Homocide (4th ed.). London: Transaction Publishers.
Doherty, W.J., Kouneski, E.F. & Erickson, M.F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An
overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60,
277-292.
Ellis, B. J., et al. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early
sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74, 801-821.
Gaudino, J. A., et al. (1999). No fathers’ names: A risk factor for infant mortality in the
sate of Georgia. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 253-265.
Harper, C., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 14, 369-397.
Heiss, J. ( 1996). Effects of African American family structure on chool attitude and
12
performance. Social Problems, 43, 246-267.

Hetherington, M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered.
New York: Norton.
Horwitz, A. V., White, H. R., & Howell-White, S. (1996). Becoming married and mental
health: A longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 58, 895-907.
Jekielek, S. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption, and children’s emotional well-
being. Social Forces, 76, 905-936.
Kamark, E. C., & Galston, W. A. (1990). Putting children first: A progressive family
policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Kroll, B. & Taylor, A. (2000). Invisible children? Parental substance abuse and child
protection: dilemmas for practice. Probation Journal, 47, 91–100.
Lansford, J. E. (2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 4, 140-152.
Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married,
and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 876-893.
Margolin, L. (1992). Child abuse by mothers’ boyfriends: Why the overrepresentation?
Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 541-551.
McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
Mitchell, K. S., Booth, A., & King, V. (2009). Adolescents with nonresident fathers: Are
daughters more disadvantaged than sons? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,
650-662.
Musick, K., & Mare, R. D. (2004). Family structure, intergenerational mobility, and the
reproduction of poverty: Evidence for increasing polarization? Demography, 41,
629-648.
Nock, S. L. (1998). Marriage in men’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1997). Black wealth/White wealth. New York:
Routledge.
Page, M. E., & Stevens, A. H. (2005). Understanding racial differences in the economic
costs of growing up in a single-parent family. Demography, 42, 75-90.
Phillips, C. P., & Asbury, C. A. (1993). Parental divorce/separation and the motivational
characteristics and educational aspirations of African American university
students. The Journal of Negro Education, 62, 204-210.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and
marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society. New York:
Basic.
Rank, M. R., & Hirshl, T. A. (1999). The economic risk of childhood in America:
Estimating the probability of poverty across the formative years. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61, 1058-1067.
Russell, D. E. H. (1984). The prevalence and seriousness of incestuous abuse:
Stepfathers vs. biological fathers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 15-22.
Schoenborn, C. A. (2004). Marital status and health: United States 1999-2002. Advance
Data from Vital Health and Statistics 351. Atlanta , GA: Centers for Disease
Control.
13
Siegel, C., et al. (1996). Mortality from intentional and unintentional injury among
infants of young mothers in Colorado, 1982-1992. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 150, 1077-1083.
Simon, R. W. (2002) Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and
mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1065-1096.
Teachman, J. R., et al. (1998). Sibling resemblance in behavioral and cognitive outcomes:
The role of father presence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 835-848.
Waite, L. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32, 483-507.
Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are
happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubleday.
Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J. M., Blakeslee, S. (2001). The unexpected legacy of divorce.
New York: Hyperion.
Weitoft, G. R., et al. (2003). Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living
with single parents in Sweden: A population-based study. The Lancet, 361, 289-
295.
Wilcox, W. B., et al. (2005). Why marriage matters (2nd. Ed.). New York: Institute for
American Values.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1987). Risk of maltreatment of children living with stepparents.
In R. Gelles & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Biosocial
dimensions. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993).Long-term effects of parental divorce on
parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood.
Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91-103.
14
Loren D. Marks
Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professor
College of Agriculture
Louisiana State University / School of Human Ecology / Division of Family, Child, & Consumer Sciences /
341 Human Ecology Building / Baton Rouge, LA 70803 / phone: (225) 578-2405 /
E-mail: lorenm@lsu.edu / fax: (225)578-2697
EMPLOYMENT
2009- Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professorship

School of Human Ecology
Division of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences
Louisiana State University
2008-2009 Associate Professor

2002-2008 Assistant Professor

EDUCATION
Ph.D. University of Delaware, 2002

Major: Family Studies
Areas of Interest: Religious Faith, Parenting, and Marriage
Dissertation: Illuminating the Interface between Families and Faith
Major Professor: Dr. Rob Palkovitz
M.S. Brigham Young University, 1999

Major: Family Sciences and Human Development
Major Professor: Dr. David C. Dollahite
B.S. Brigham Young University, 1997

Major: Family Sciences
Loren Marks
TEACHING
Louisiana State University; Division of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences

2009 Human Ecology (HUEC) 2050 – Family Dynamics
2007-2008 HUEC 2065 – Family Resource Management
2003-2009 HUEC 2091 – Marriage and Family Relationships
2006-2007 HUEC 3067 – Field Experience in Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences
2002-2009 HUEC 3090 – Seminar in Human Ecology (Internship Preparation)
2006 HUEC 4065 – Family Life Education
2003-2009 HUEC 4067 – Internship in Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences
2003-2005 HUEC 7051 – Contemporary Family
2004-2009 HUEC 7052 – Qualitative Research Methods
2004-2009 HUEC 7057 – Theories of Family Science
University of Delaware; Department of Individual and Family Studies
2001-2002 IFST 101 – Introduction to Community and Family Services

2002 IFST 201 – Lifespan Development
2001 IFST 202 – Foundations of Family Studies
2002 IFST 230 – Emerging Lifestyles: Relationships and Diversity
Brigham Young University; Department of Family Sciences
1998-99 Family Sciences 303 – Parenting
GRANTS
Funded Research Grants
2008 Marks, L. D. Religion and strong, happy, enduring African-American

marriages. Office of Research and Economic Development Faculty Travel
Grant, $750.
2006 Marks, L. D. National Study of Faith and Families. LSU Council on

Research, $750.
2005 Marks, L. D. When Faith Comes Home: A Qualitative Study of 150

Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Families. Society for the Scientific Study
of Religion, Jack Shand Research Award, $3,000.
2005 Degreenia, K., LeJeune, E., Lawrence, F. C., Marks, L., & Burczyk-
Brown, J. J. The Influence of Parents on Students' Money Management
and Credit Behaviors. LSU College of Agriculture Undergraduate
Research Grant, $750.
2
Loren Marks
2004 Marks, L. D. Why Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Communities Matter:

A National Qualitative Study of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Families,
Proposal submitted to Faculty Research Grant Program, LSU Office of
Research and Graduate Studies, $10,000.
2004 Marks, L. D. A Qualitative Test of a Conceptual Model of How Highly

Religious Families Strive to Fulfill Sacred Purposes. Louisiana Board of
Regents Travel Grant for Emerging Faculty, $1,000.
2004 Garrison, M. E., & Marks, L. D. Major Coastal Storms and

Family Functioning. Quick Response Grant Program, Natural Hazards
Center, $3,460.
2003 Marks, L. D., & Garrison, M. E. B. Children, Mothers, Fathers, and

Family Challenges: A Mixed-Method Study of Family Stress, Coping
Processes, and Children’s Outcomes. Billie Collier Challenge Grant,
$1,500.
2003 Marks, L. D. The Meaning and Influence of Religious Beliefs in Families:

Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. LSU Council on Research,
$5,000.
2003 Davis, T., Marks, L., Sasser, D., Garrison, M.E.B., Hopkins, K. &
Nesteruk, O. A Qualitative Study of Family Stress and Coping in African-
American Families. Undergraduate Research Grant, College of
Agriculture, $500 ($800 match from Human Ecology).
2003 Fritzinger, T., Garrison, M.E.B., Marks, L., Sasser, D., & Dunaway, D.
A Multidisciplinary and Longitudinal Investigation of Parenting and
Children’s Classroom Motivation. Undergraduate Research Grant,
College of Agriculture, $500 ($800 match from Human Ecology).
PUBLICATIONS (reverse chronological order)
Peer-Reviewed Articles and Chapters
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C., Dew, J., & Wax. J. (in press). Enhancing cultural
competence in financial counseling and planning: Understanding why families
make religious contributions. Financial Counseling and Planning, 20 (2).
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (in press). Mining the meanings from
psychology of religion’s correlation mountain. Journal of Psychology of
Religion and Spirituality.
3
Loren Marks
Marks, L. D., Hopkins, K., Chaney, C., Nesteruk, O., & Sasser, D. (in press). “My
kids and wife have been my life”: A qualitative study of married African-
American fathers. In R. Coles & C. Green (Eds.), The myth of the missing black
father. New York: Columbia University.
Laird, R. D., Marrero, M. D., & Marks, L. D. (in press). Adolescent religiosity as a
protective factor for delinquency: Review of evidence and a conceptual
framework for future research. Delinquency: Causes, reduction, and prevention.
Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.
Holmes, E. K., Baumgartner, J., Marks, L. D., Palkovitz, R., & Nesteruk, O.
(in press). Contemporary contradictions and challenges facing married fathers and
mothers. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Marriage: Roles, stability, and conflict.
Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.
Chaney, C., Marks, L. D., Sasser, D. D., & Hopkins, K. D. (in press). “Train up a child
in the way…”: A qualitative study of how the Black church influences parents.
In F. Columbus (Ed.), Family Relations. Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.
Nesteruk, O., Marks, L. D., & Garrison, M. E. (in press). Immigrant parents’ concerns
regarding their children’s education in the U.S. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal.
Marks, L. D., Cherry, K., & Silva, J. (2009). Faith, crisis, coping, and meaning
making after Katrina: A qualitative, cross-cohort examination. In K. Cherry (ed.),
Lifespan Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Coping with Katrina, Rita and
other Storms (pp. 195-215). New York: Springer.
Nesteruk, O., & Marks, L. D. (2009).Grandparents across the ocean: Eastern
European immigrants’ struggle to maintain intergenerational relationships.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 77-95.
Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D. (2009). A conceptual model of processes
in a diverse, national sample of highly religious families. Review of
Religious Research, 50, 373-391.
Silva, J., Marks, L. D., & Cherry, K. (2009). The psychology behind helping and
prosocial behaviors: An examination from intention to action in an adult
population. In K. Cherry (ed.), Lifespan Perspectives on Natural Disasters:
Coping with Katrina, Rita and other Storms (pp. 219-240). New York: Springer.
Marks, L. D. (2008). Prayer and marital intervention: Asking for divine help…or
professional trouble? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 678-685.
Marks, L. D., Hopkins, K., Chaney, C., Nesteruk, O., Monroe, P., & Sasser, D.
(2008). “Together, we are strong”: A qualitative study of happy, enduring
African-American marriages. Family Relations, 57, 171-184.
Batson, M., & Marks, L. D. (2008). Making the connection between prayer, faith,
and forgiveness in Roman Catholic families. The Qualitative Report, 13, 394-415.
Marks, L. D., & Beal, B. (2008). Preserving peculiarity as a people:
Mormon distinctness in values and internal structure. In C. K. Jacobson, J. P.
Hoffmann, and T. B. Heaton (Eds.), Revisiting “The Mormons”: Persistent
themes and contemporary perspectives (pp. 258-285). Salt Lake City, UT:
University of Utah Press.
4
Loren Marks
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2007). Fathering and religious contexts:

Why religion makes a difference to fathers and their children. In S. E. Brotherson
& J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count (pp. 335-351). Harriman, TN: Men’s
Studies Press.
Marks, L. D., & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Fathers as spiritual guides. In S. E.
Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count (pp. 209-223). Harriman,
TN: Men’s Studies Press.
Marks, L. D., & Chaney, C. (2007). Faith communities and African American
families: A qualitative look at why the black church matters. In S. D. Ambrose
(Ed.), Religion and psychology: New research (pp. 277-294). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science.
Marks, L. D. (2006). Religion and family relational health: An overview and
conceptual model. Journal of Religion and Health, 45, 603-618.
Marks, L. D. (2006). Mental health, religious belief, and “the terrifying question.”
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(2).
Marks, L. D., Swanson, M., Nesteruk, O., & Hopkins-Williams, K. (2006).
Stressors in African American marriages and families: A qualitative study. Stress,
Trauma, and Crisis: An International Journal, 9, 203-225.
Boyatzis, C., Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D. (2006). The family as a context for
religious and spiritual development in children and youth. In E. C.
Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of
spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 297-309). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D. (2006). Family and community nurturing
spirituality in Latter-day Saint children and youth. In K. Yust, A. N. Johnson,
S. E. Sasso, & E. C. Roehlkepartain (Eds.), Nurturing childhood and adolescent
spirituality: Perspectives from the world’s religious traditions (pp. 394-408).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lawrence, F., Cude, B., Lyons, A., Marks, L., & Machtmes, K. (2006). College
students’ financial practices: A mixed methods analysis. Journal of Consumer
Education, 23, 13-26.
Marks, L. D. (2005). How does religion influence marriage?: Christian, Jewish,
Mormon, and Muslim perspectives. Marriage and Family Review, 38, 85-111.
Marks, L. D., Nesteruk, O., Swanson, M., Garrison, M. E. B., & Davis, T. (2005).
Religion and health among African Americans: A qualitative examination.
Research on Aging, 27, 447-474.
Marks, L. D. (2005). Religion and bio-psycho-social health: A review and conceptual
model. Journal of Religion and Health, 44, 173-186.
Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D. (2005). How highly religious families strive to
fulfill sacred purposes. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dillworth-
Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 533-
541). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garrison, M. E. B., Marks, L. D., Lawrence, F. C., & Braun, B. (2004). Religious
beliefs, faith community involvement, and depression: A study of rural, low-
income mothers. Women & Health, 40, 51-62.
5
Loren Marks
Marks, L. D. (2004). Sacred practices in highly religious families: Christian, Jewish,

Mormon, and Muslim perspectives. Family Process, 43, 217-231.
Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Goodman, M. (2004). Religiosity and families:
Relational and spiritual linkages in a diverse and dynamic cultural context. In
M. J. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary families
(pp. 411-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marks, L. D., & Palkovitz, R. (2004). American fatherhood types: The good, the bad,
and the uninterested. Fathering, 2, 113-129.
Palkovitz, R., Marks, L. D., Appleby, D. W., & Holmes, E. K. (2003). Parenting and
adult development: Contexts, processes and products of intergenerational
relationships. In L. Kucynski (Ed.), The handbook of dynamics in parent-child
relations (pp. 307-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Palkovitz, R., & Marks, L. D. (2002). Refining fatherhood and motherhood: An analysis
of cultural trends in American parenting. In W. E. Fthenakis & M. R. Trextor
(Eds.), Mutterschaft, Vatterschaft, (pp. 156-169). Germany: Weinheim and Basel.
Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Olson, M. M. (2002). Fathering, faith, and family
therapy: Generative narrative therapy with religious fathers. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy, 13, 263-294. [published simultaneously in T. D. Carlson & M. J.
Erickson (Eds.), Spirituality and Family Therapy (pp. 259-290). New York:
Haworth.]
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2001). Religion, relationships, and responsible
fathering in Latter-day Saint families of children with special needs. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 625-650.
Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Olson, M. M. (1998). Faithful fathering in trying
times: Religious beliefs and practices of Latter-day Saint fathers of children with
special needs. The Journal of Men's Studies, 7, 71-93.
Invited Publications and Book Reviews
Marks, L. D. (in press). [Book Review] Men on a mission: Valuing youth work in our
communities, by W. Marsiglio. Fathering, 7.
Marks, L. D. (2009). [Book Review] American religions and the family: How faith
traditions cope with modernization & democracy, edited by D. S. Browning and
D. A. Clairmont. BYU Studies, 48, 182-185.
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2005). Family worship in Christian, Jewish, and
Muslim homes. In C. H. Hart, L. D. Newell, E. Walton, & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.),
Helping and healing our families, (pp. 259-263). Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.
Marks, L. D. (2005). The importance of family in children’s education. The
Baton Rouge Association for the Education of Young Children Quarterly.
Marks, L. D. (2003). The effects of religious beliefs in marriage and family. Marriage
and Families, 12, 2-10.
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2003). Families of faith: A preliminary report of why
religion matters. NCFR Report, 48, F3-F4.
6
Loren Marks
Manuscripts under Review
Marks, L. D., Hopkins, K., Nesteruk, O., & Chaney, C. (revised and resubmitted). A
qualitative exploration of why faith matters in African American marriages and
families. Journal of Family Issues.
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., Marks, L. D., & Stillman, T. F. (revised and
resubmitted). Invocations and intoxication: Does prayer decrease alcohol
consumption? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.
Nesteruk,O., & Marks, L. D. (under review). The best of both cultures: Immigrant
parents searching for balance in parenting practices. Journal of Family Issues.
Manuscripts in Preparation
Marks, L. D. (in preparation). Religious involvement and men’s health: Insights

from quantitative and qualitative research. American Journal of Men’s Health.
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (in preparation). Faith and prayer in family life. In
Strengthening our families (2nd ed.), T.W. Draper (ed.). Provo, UT: BYU.
Tausch, C., Silva, J., Cherry, K., Marks, L., Sasser, D., Frias, T., MacWilliams, Z., &
Melancon, M. (in preparation). Religion and coping in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Qualitative Themes from the Louisiana Healthy
Aging Study. (To be submitted to Journal of Religion, Spirituality, and Aging).
Dollahite, D., Marks, L., Jolley, K., Fullwood, W., & Ficklin, T. (in preparation). Marital
transformation in a national qualitative sample. (To be submitted to Journal of
Marriage and Family).
Dollahite, D., Marks, L., & Worthen, B. (in preparation). Marital sacredness in a
national qualitative sample. (To be submitted to Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion).
Marks, L., Dollahite, D., & Reid, K. (in preparation). Marital forgiveness in a national
qualitative sample: Clinical implications (To be submitted to Family Process).
Goodman, M., Jacob, J., Dollahite, D., & Marks, L. (in preparation). Marital
commitment in a national qualitative sample. (To be submitted to Journal of
Family Issues).
Marks, L., Dollahite, D., Call, S., & Burrell, K. (in preparation). A comparison of
Abrahamic faiths in a national qualitative sample. (To be submitted to Journal of
Comparative Family Studies).
Dollahite, D., Marks, L., Handy, S., & Oxborrow, M. (in preparation). Transformative
processes in marriage: Themes from a national qualitative sample. (To be
submitted to Journal of Family Psychology).
Cherry, K., Marks, L. D., & Silva, J., Frias, T., MacWilliams, Z., & Melancon, M. (in
preparation). Hurricane Katrina and religion: A quantitative cross-cohort mixed-
method study.
7
Loren Marks
Conference Proceedings Publications
Cude, B., Lawrence, F., Lyons, A., Marks, L., Machtmes, K., Metzger, K., & LeJeune,
E. (2006). College students and financial literacy: What they know and what we
need to learn. Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the Eastern Family
Economics-Resource Management Association, 102-109.
Lawrence, F., Metzger, K., LeJeune, E., Marks, L., Machtmes, K., & Lyons, A. (2005).
College students’ money management behaviors and who influences them.
Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning, 30-32.
Davis, T., Hopkins, K., Nesteruk, O., Marks, L. D., Sasser, D.D., Burczyk-Brown, J., &
Garrison, M. E. B. (2003). A Qualitative Study of Family Stress and Coping in
African-American Families: Preliminary Findings. Family Relations and Human
Development / Family Economics and Resource Management Biennial, 5.
Fritzinger, T., Garrison, M. E. B., Marks, L. D., Sasser, D., Burczyk-Brown, J. (2003).
A multidisciplinary and longitudinal investigation of parenting and children’s
classroom motivation. Family Relations and Human Development / Family
Economics and Resource Management Biennial, 5.
REFERREED OR INVITED PRESENTATIONS
Marks, L. D., Lawrence, F., & Dollahite, D. C. (November, 2009). Understanding why
families make religious contributions. Poster to be presented at the AFCPE
Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Lu, Y., & Marks, L. D. (November, 2009). The influence of religion on Chinese
Christian immigrants: A qualitative study of marriage. Poster to be presented at
the National Council on Family Relations, San Francisco, CA.
Lambert, N., Fincham, F., & Marks, L. (June, 2009). Does talking to God make people
less inclined to drink?: The association between prayer and alcohol consumption.
World Congress on Positive Psychology. Philadelphia, PA.
Laird, R., Marrero, M., & Marks, L. (April, 2009). Does opportunity, propensity, or
proximity account for the association between religiosity and behavior problems?
Paper presented at the Society for Research on Child Development, Denver, CO.
Marks, L. D., Hopkins, K., Chaney, C., & Sasser, D. (November, 2008). Religion and
strong, happy, enduring African-American marriages. Paper presented at the
National Council on Family Relations, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Nesteruk, O., Marks, L., D., & Garrison, M. E. B. (November, 2008). The challenges of
raising children in immigration: Voices of parents from Eastern Europe. Paper
presented at the National Council on Family Relations, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Marks, L. D. (April, 2008). Strengthening families: Lessons learned from happy,
enduring African-American marriages. LSU AgCenter State Conference. Baton
Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D. (March, 2008). Striving to be a great dad: Traps, trials, and truths. 22nd
Annual “Kids Are Worth It!” Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Baton
Rouge, LA.
8
Loren Marks
Marks, L. D., Chaney, C., Hopkins, K., & Sasser, D. (February, 2008). A qualitative
study of strong, happy, enduring African-American marriages. Society for Cross-
Cultural Research, 37th Annual National Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Marks, L. D. (November, 2007). Why do highly religious marriages last?: Experiences
and explanations from a National Qualitative Sample. Paper presented at the
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
Nesteruk, O., & Marks, L. D. (November, 2007). Grandparents across the ocean: A
qualitative study of Eastern European immigrant families. Paper presented at the
National Council on Family Relations, Pittsburgh, PA.
Marks, L. D. (March, 2007). The difficulties of qualitative research and some strategies
for overcoming them. Invited lecture at the LSU Qualitative Research Special
Interest Group, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D., Chaney, C., & Hopkins-Williams, K. (November, 2006). Faith
communities and African-American families: A qualitative study. Paper presented
at the National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, MN.
Nesteruk, O., & Marks, L. D. (November, 2006). What do the aliens see?: A qualitative
study of Eastern European immigrant families. Paper presented at the National
Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, MN.
Marks, L. (March, 2006). What does science tell us about families and religion? Invited
lecture at the LSU Science and Religion Collegium, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L., Dollahite, D., Berry, A., & Nesteruk, O. (November, 2005). Faith
communities and American families: A qualitative exploration of the challenges,
the rewards, and the meanings. Paper presented at the National Council on
Family Relations, Phoenix, AZ.
Nesteruk, O., Marks, L., & Garrison, M.E.B. (November, 2005). What aliens see: A
qualitative exploration of U.S. cultural influences. Presented at the National
Council on Family Relations, Phoenix, AZ.
Lawrence, F. C., Metzger, K., LeJeune, E., Marks, L., & Lyons, A. (November, 2005).
College students’ money management behaviors and who influences them. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference for the Association for Financial Counseling,
Planning, and Education, Scottsdale, AZ.
Nesteruk, O., Swanson, M., Berry, A., & Marks, L. D. (March, 2005). A qualitative
examination of religious beliefs among African Americans. Paper presented
at the LSU Life Course and Aging Center Conference, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D., Swanson, M., Hopkins-Williams, K., & Nesteruk, O. (November, 2004).
Religion, stress, and coping in African American families. Paper presented at the
National Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.
Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D. (November, 2004). A qualitative test of a conceptual
model of how highly religious families strive to fulfill sacred purposes. Paper
presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop of
the National Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.
Nesteruk, O., Hopkins-Williams, K., Swanson, M., & Marks, L. D. (November, 2004).
Why do religious African Americans live almost 14 years longer? Paper presented
at the National Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.
9
Loren Marks
Marks, L. D. (March, 2004). Research in the School of Human Ecology: The ivory tower
meets the real world. Presentation at Annual LSU AgCenter Family and
Consumer Sciences Conference, Baton Rouge, LA.
Nesteruk, O., Swanson, M., Hopkins-Williams, K., & Marks, L. D. (March, 2004).
Religion, health, and longevity among African Americans. Paper presented at the
LSU Life Course and Aging Center Conference, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D. (February, 2004). State of the black church. Panelist/presentation at
LSU Black History Month Celebration, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D. (February, 2004). Religious diversity in the workplace. Presentation at
Annual LSU AgCenter Diversity Conference, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D. (November, 2003). How and why does religion influence marriage?:
Muslim, Jewish, and Christian perspectives. Paper presented at the 2003 National
Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, BC.
Marks, L. D. (October, 2003). Food for thought: Linkages between health, religious
communities, and nutrition education. Presentation given at 2003 Annual
Conference of LSU AgCenter Family Nutrition Program, Baton Rouge, LA.
Marks, L. D. (November, 2002). Highly involved families of faith: A qualitative analysis
of the costs, the challenges, and why it’s worth it. Paper presented at the 2002
National Council on Family Relations, Houston, TX.
Marks, L. D. (November, 2002). The meaning and influence of religious practices for
families: What do they do and why do they do it? Paper presented at 2002 Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
Marks, L. D. (October, 2002). Why religion matters to families and those who study
them. Invited paper presented at School of Family Life Symposium, Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT.
Marks, L. D. (May, 2002). Why religion matters to families: A review and new
conceptualization. Paper presented at the Marion H. Steele Symposium of the
Delaware Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Newark, DE.
Marks, L. D. (November, 2001). Religion, families, and fathers. Paper presented at the
Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop of the National
Council on Family Relations, Rochester, NY.
Marks, L. D. (March, 2001). Fatherhood and work: Challenges, choices, and balances.
Presented at Nursing Mothers Conference, Newark, DE.
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (November, 2000). Religious experience and meaning
for Latter-day Saint fathers of children with special needs. Presented at the
National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, MN.
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (October, 1999). Religious experience and meaning for
Latter-day Saint fathers of children with special needs. Presented at the Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion, Boston, MA.
Marks, L. D., Springer, P., & Ogden, M. (April, 1999). LDS fathers of children with
special needs: A qualitative analysis. Presented at the Brigham Young University
Conference for Family Sciences, Provo, UT.
Marks, L. D. (April, 1998). Challenges and supports for fathers of children with special
needs. Presented at the Utah Council on Family Relations, Provo, UT.
10
Loren Marks
Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Olsen, M. M. (November, 1997). Faithful fathering in
trying times: Religious beliefs and practices in fathers of children with special
needs. Presented at the National Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, VA.
Olson, M. M., Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D. (Novemeber, 1997). Generative fathering
of children with special needs: Conceptual connections and narratives. Poster
presented at the National Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, VA.
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (April, 1997). Faithful fathering: Ten qualitative
themes. Presented at the Utah Council on Family Relations, Provo, UT, April, 1997.
AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
2002 Best Paper Award, Delaware Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
2004 Paper of the Year Award, NCFR Religion and Family Life Section
2004 Alumni Association Outstanding Teacher Award, LSU School of Human Ecology
2005 Tiger Athletic Foundation Outstanding Teacher Award, LSU College of Agriculture
2005 Jack Shand Research Award, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
2008 Alumni Association Outstanding Teacher Award, LSU School of Human Ecology
2008 LSU Rainmaker Award – Top 100 LSU Research Faculty for 2008
2009 Alpha Lamba Delta ‘Dedication to Instruction’ Recognition
2009 Sedberry Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching Award, LSU College of Agriculture
2009 LSU Today Flagship Faculty
2009 Who’s Who in America
2009 Sedberry Award: Outstanding Undergraduate Teacher, LSU College of Agriculture
2009 Received Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussel Alumni Professorship
MEMBERSHIPS AND CERTIFICATIONS
Member, National Council on Family Relations (NCFR)

Member, Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society
Member, Gamma Sigma Delta Honor Society
Certified Family Life Educator (CFLE)
SERVICE
Member, NCFR Diversity Task Force

Reviewer for Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being (UK)
Reviewer for Counseling and Spirituality
Reviewer for Family Relations
Reviewer for Fathering
Reviewer for Journal of Child and Family Studies
Reviewer for Journal of Comparative Family Studies
Reviewer for Journal of Family Theory and Review
Reviewer for Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning
11
Loren Marks
SERVICE (cont.)
Reviewer for Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

Reviewer for Journal of Marriage and Family
Reviewer for Journal of Religion and Health
Reviewer for Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
REFERENCES
David C. Dollahite, Professor

School of Family Life
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Phone: (801)378-4179
E-mail: dave_dollahite@byu.edu
Betsy Garrison, Professor

Associate Dean, College of Agriculture
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
E-mail: hcgarr@lsu.edu
Pam Monroe, Professor

Past-President of National Council on Family Relations
School of Social Work
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
E-mail: pmonroe@lsu.edu
Rob Palkovitz, Professor

Department of Individual and Family Studies
University of Delaware
104 Alison Hall
Newark, DE 19716
Phone: (302)831-8559
E-mail: robp@udel.edu
12
Index of Material Considered
1. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Impact of childhood family disruption on young adults’

relationships with parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family
2. Aquilino, W. S. (1996). The life course of children born to unmarried mothers:

Childhood living arrangements and young adult outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the
Family
3. Akerlof, G. (1998). Men without children. Economic Journal
4. Allison, P. D., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1989). How marital dissolution affects children:
Variations by age and sex. Developmental Psychology
5. Amato, P. (1991). Parental absence during childhood and depression in later life.
Sociological Quarterly
6. Amato, P. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and
emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children
7. Amato, P., & Booth, A. (2000). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family
upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Amato, P., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s
relations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family
9. Bachman, J. G., et al. (1997). Smoking, drinking and drug abuse in young adulthood.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Battle, J. (1998). What beats having two parents?: Educational outcomes for African-
American students in single- versus dual-parent families. Journal of Black Studies
11. Blackmon, L., Clayton, O., Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., & Roberts, A. (2005). The
consequences of marriage for African Americans: A comprehensive literature review.
New York: Institute for American Values.
12. Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America. New York: Harper.
13. Booth, A., & Amato, P. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce
well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family
14. Burger, W. R., & Youkeles, M. (2000). Human services in contemporary America.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
15. Cherlin, A. J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on
mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review
16. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2008). Homocide (4th ed.). London: Transaction Publishers.
17. Doherty, W.J., Kouneski, E.F. & Erickson, M.F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An
overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family
18. Ellis, B. J., et al. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early
sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development
19. Gaudino, J. A., et al. (1999). No fathers’ names: A risk factor for infant mortality in the
sate of Georgia. Social Science and Medicine
20. Harper, C., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of
Research on Adolescence
21. Heiss, J. ( 1996). Effects of African American family structure on chool attitude and
performance. Social Problems
22. Hetherington, M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered.
New York: Norton.
23. Horwitz, A. V., White, H. R., & Howell-White, S. (1996). Becoming married and mental
health: A longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. Journal of Marriage and the
Family
24. Jekielek, S. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption, and children’s emotional well-
being. Social Forces
25. Kamark, E. C., & Galston, W. A. (1990). Putting children first: A progressive family
policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
26. Kroll, B. & Taylor, A. (2000). Invisible children? Parental substance abuse and child
protection: dilemmas for practice. Probation Journal
27. Lansford, J. E. (2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on

Psychological Science
28. Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married,
and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family
29. Margolin, L. (1992). Child abuse by mothers’ boyfriends: Why the overrepresentation?
Child Abuse and Neglect
30. McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
31. Mitchell, K. S., Booth, A., & King, V. (2009). Adolescents with nonresident fathers: Are
daughters more disadvantaged than sons? Journal of Marriage and Family
32. Musick, K., & Mare, R. D. (2004). Family structure, intergenerational mobility, and the
reproduction of poverty: Evidence for increasing polarization? Demography
33. Nock, S. L. (1998). Marriage in men’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1997). Black wealth/White wealth. New York:
Routledge.
35. Page, M. E., & Stevens, A. H. (2005). Understanding racial differences in the economic
costs of growing up in a single-parent family. Demography
36. Phillips, C. P., & Asbury, C. A. (1993). Parental divorce/separation and the motivational
characteristics and educational aspirations of African American university students. The
Journal of Negro Education
37. Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and
marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society. New York:
Basic.
38. Rank, M. R., & Hirshl, T. A. (1999). The economic risk of childhood in America:
Estimating the probability of poverty across the formative years. Journal of Marriage
and the Family
39. Russell, D. E. H. (1984). The prevalence and seriousness of incestuous abuse:

Stepfathers vs. biological fathers. Child Abuse and Neglect
40. Schoenborn, C. A. (2004). Marital status and health: United States 1999-2002. Advance
Data from Vital Health and Statistics 351. Atlanta , GA: Centers for Disease Control.
41. Siegel, C., et al. (1996). Mortality from intentional and unintentional injury among
infants of young mothers in Colorado, 1982-1992. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine
42. Simon, R. W. (2002) Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and
mental health. American Journal of Sociology
43. Teachman, J. R., et al. (1998). Sibling resemblance in behavioral and cognitive outcomes:
The role of father presence. Journal of Marriage and the Family
44. Waite, L. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography
45. Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are
happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubleday.
46. Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J. M., Blakeslee, S. (2001). The unexpected legacy of divorce.
New York: Hyperion.
47. Weitoft, G. R., et al. (2003). Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living
with single parents in Sweden: A population-based study. The Lancet
48. Wilcox, W. B., et al. (2005). Why marriage matters (2nd. Ed.). New York: Institute for
American Values.
49. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1987). Risk of maltreatment of children living with stepparents.
In R.
50. Gelles & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Biosocial dimensions. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
51. Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993).Long-term effects of parental divorce on
parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of
Family Psychology
52. Yongmin Sun, The Well-Being of Adolescents in the Households with No Biological
Parents, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Nov., 2003)

PERRY, et al.,
v. CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al. DECLARATION OF

DAVID BLANKENHORN,
AS EXPERT WITNESS FOR
DEFENDANT
Declaration of David G. Blankenhorn
1. I, David G. Blankenhorn, make this declaration based on my own personal

knowledge. If called to testify, I could and would testify competently regarding the facts
and conclusions contained in this declaration.
Qualifications
2. For the past twenty-three years, I have dedicated my professional life to

studying, writing, and educating others about issues of family policy and family well-
being, with a particular focus on the institution of marriage. During this time, I have
delivered many academic lectures and public addresses, written extensively, and testified
on several occasions before federal and state legislative committees on the topic of
marriage.
3. I am the founder and President of the Institute for American Values, a

non-partisan organization devoted to research, publication, and public education on issues
of family policy, family well-being, and civil society. In my role as President, I study
these issues extensively and frequently write and speak publicly about them.
4. I have authored published books about marriage, family life, and the role
that marriage plays in society, including:
• The Future of Marriage (2006). In The Future of Marriage, I drew on my

continuing anthropological, historical, and cultural study of the institution of
marriage to address issues including what the institution of marriage is, why
marriage has developed in the way that it has, the societal interests that the
institution of marriage serves, and the impact that could result from changes to the
institution (including its potential extension to same-sex couples).
• Fatherless America: Confronting our Most Urgent Social Problem (1995).

Fatherless in America drew on my continuing study into the impact of family
structure on childhood development and wellbeing to chronicle the increasing
experience of fatherlessness, detail the negative consequences that flow from
fatherlessness, and offer proposals to promote active, responsible fatherhood.
5. In addition, I have served as co-editor of several published books on the

topic of marriage, including The Book of Marriage: The Wisest Answers to the Toughest
Questions (2001) and Promises to Keep: Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America
(1996). The Book of Marriage is an anthology of source readings on marriage and is
intended to combat the lack of intellectually engaging and morally serious pedagogical
literature on marriage and family life. Promises to Keep collects essays written by social
scientists, theologians, lawyers, and policy makers about the problems the institution of
marriage faces in contemporary society.
6. Other published books on marriage and family life that I have co-edited
include Black Fathers in Contemporary American Society (2003) and Rebuilding the
Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (1990).
7. My essays addressing marriage and family life have appeared in popular

publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Public
Interest, and First Things, among others.
8. I have shared my expertise about the institution of marriage in testimony

before committees of the United States House of Representatives, the Pennsylvania state
legislature, and the Michigan state legislature.
9. In 1992, President Bush appointed me as a member of the National

Commission on America’s Urban Families. As a member, I participated in
Commission’s work of examining the condition of urban families and developing
recommendations for government policies and programs (as well as actions by other
institutions) to strengthen urban families.
10. I am also the founding chairman of the National Fatherhood Initiative, a

non-partisan organization whose mission is to improve the well-being of children by
increasing the proportion of children growing up with involved, responsible, and
committed fathers.
11. In addition to my study of marriage and family life, early in my career I

worked for five years as a VISTA Volunteer and a community organizer in
Massachusetts and Virginia, focusing on issues affecting minority and low-income
Americans.
12. My education includes an M.A. with distinction in Comparative Labor

History from the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, where I studied as a
2
recipient of a John Knox Fellowship, awarded by Harvard University. In 1977, I

received a B.A. and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University.
13. I am being compensated at a rate of $300 an hour for my work in this

matter.
What is Marriage?
14. As an intellectual matter, whether or not to grant equal marriage rights to
gay and lesbian persons depends importantly on one’s answer to the question, “What is
marriage?” In today’s debate, there are two main ways to answer this question.
Idea One:
Marriage is fundamentally a private adult commitment.
15. Consider these recent, representative examples of prominent persons

making precisely this argument:
Now marriage is seen by most people as love, intimacy, happiness.
Barbara Risman, a University of Illinois sociology professor who writes

frequently about families 1
The state’s objectives underlying contemporary regulation of marriage relate

essentially to the facilitation of private ordering: providing an orderly framework
in which people can express their commitment to each other, receive public
recognition and support, and voluntarily assume a range of legal rights and
obligations.
The Law Commission of Canada, 20012
In the wake of significant transformation, marriage has survived, all the while
remaining true to its core purpose of recognizing committed, interdependent
partnerships between consenting adults.
1
Barbara J. Risman, quoted in Barbara Barrett, “Does marriage need government’s help?” (Raleigh) News
& Observer, January 19, 2004.
2
Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and supporting close personal adult
relationships (Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada, 2001), 129, xviii.
3
30 U.S. professors of history and family law, 2005 3
Marriage is sometimes referred to as an “institution,” but that’s an odd

application of the term. The Department of Defense is an institution. The
University of California is an institution. A marriage is a private arrangement
between parties committed to love.
Professor Crispin Sartwell, Dickenson College, 2004 4
No matter what language we speak – from Arabic to Yiddish, from Chinook to

Chinese – marriage is what we use to describe a specific relationship of love and
dedication to another person.
The attorney and author Evan Wolfson, 2004 5
If I had to pare marriage down to its essential core, I would say that marriage is
two people’s lifelong commitment, recognized by law and society, to care for each
other.
The journalist and author Jonathan Rauch, 2004 6
Marriage is not simply a private contract; it is a social and public recognition of

a private commitment.
The journalist and author Andrew Sullivan 7
In today’s society the importance of marriage is relational and not procreational.
The Yale Law School professor William N. Eskridge, Jr., 1996 8
3
“Brief of the Professors …” Lewis v. Harris, Supreme Court of New Jersey, Docket 58389 (Newark,
October 6, 2005), 1-2, 16.
4
Crispin Sartwell, “’Marriage amendment’ a threat to Constitution,” Philadelphia Inquirer, February 25,
2004.
5
Evan Wolfson, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry (New York:
Simon & Shuster, 2004), 3.
6
Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America
(New York: Times Books, 2004), 24.
7
Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), 179.
8
William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 11.
4
16. This understanding of marriage is reasonably widespread today,

particularly among U.S. journalists and advocates of same-sex marriage. But there is also
a second, and quite different, way of understanding what marriage is.
Idea Two:
Marriage is fundamentally a pro-child social institution.
17. A principal purpose of this declaration to the Court is to insist, based on an

overwhelming body of scholarly evidence, that intelligent, fair-minded persons of good
will who bear no animosity to their fellow citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation
can rationally conclude that the primary purpose of marriage in human groups (including
those in North America) is to solve the problem of sexual embodiment – the species’
division into male and female – and that problem’s primary consequence, sexual
reproduction. The core need that marriage aims to meet is the child’s need to be
emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man
whose sexual union brought the child into the world. That is not all that marriage is or
does. But nearly everywhere on the planet, that is fundamentally what marriage is and
does.
18. Indeed, scholarship shows that this core purpose of marriage is also
universal, or at least nearly universal. Human groups from around the world, despite
their great diversity in so many areas, typically fashion marriage rules aimed primarily at
guaranteeing that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and
legally affiliated with both of its natural parents.
19. According to those who have studied the evolution of our species, a
primary reason for the emergence of human pair-bonding is to insure that mothers are not
forced to raise children alone.9 The evolutionary record suggests that, early in the
9
Some species deliver “precocial” young, or offspring that enter the world in a state of relative maturity.
A few hours after birth, for example, a foal (a young horse) can see and walk. By contrast, humans deliver
“altricial” young, or offspring that enter the world in a state of unusual helplessness and dependency.
In fact, human infants are more helpless, and more dependent, than the offspring of any other primate. For
example, for lemur young, the time of virtually complete physical dependency – let’s call it “infancy” –
lasts about six months. For gibbons, two years. For chimpanzees, three years. For humans? Six years.
But of course, even through and long past the age of six, the human child’s larger need for intimate care
and connectedness to others is profound. As the anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy puts it, human beings
are “born to attach.” Despite some of our myths, none of us are self-made. We talk only because others talk
to us. We are smiled into smiling and loved into loving.
The main reason for sexually based pair-bonding among humans is that mothers cannot and should not
do this work alone. For the prematurely born, large-brained, slowly developing, deeply psychologically
needy human infant, a mother working by herself is, in general, not enough. To improve the likelihood of
survival and success, the infant also needs its father, and the mother needs the active, on-going social
cooperation of the man who “fathered” her child. That fact, according to best available scholarship, lies at
the very heart of the emergence, universality, and continuation of the marital institution in human societies.
5
development of our species, men and women developed a particular and unusual way of
living together – a way of living that would later be called marriage – primarily because,
to survive and flourish, the human infant needs its father and the human mother needs a
mate.
20. The record of marriage in human groups shows that marriage is

humanity’s fundamental cultural expression of this evolutionary fact. It is our main way
of naming that evolutionary fact, of fully acknowledging it, and of creating the
expectations and rules of conduct – creating the social institution – capable of reflecting
and culturally responding to its requirements.
21. After all, why did we humans invent marriage in the first place? Why do
we keep it around? Here is a proposition that is almost certainly true: If human beings
did not reproduce sexually and did not start out in life as helpless infants – if, for
example, new humans arrived on earth fully grown, brought to society by storks – our
species would never have developed an institution called marriage.
22. These views are mine, but certainly not mine alone. On the contrary, they
rest on an extraordinary and all but incontrovertible body of high-quality scholarship
regarding the purposes of marriage in human groups that has come to us courtesy of the
most distinguished anthropologists, historians, and sociologists. Until fairly recently –
and in particular, until same-sex marriage in recent years became an important political
and social issue in the United States – these finding from these eminent scholars were
widely viewed as well-established and essentially non-controversial.
23. Consider some representative examples of these scholars and others

articulating precisely these findings:
The process begins with the copulation of two adults of opposite sex.
The anthropologist Peter J. Wilson puts it, describing the origins of human
kinship forms, 1983 10
Copulation produces the relation between the mates which is the foundation of
marriage and parenthood.
11
The anthropologist Robin Fox, 1967
See, for example, Helen E. Fisher, Anatomy of Love (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), 151, 335; and
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection (New York:
Pantheon, 1999), 383-393.
10
Peter J. Wilson, Man the Promising Primate: The Conditions of Human Evolution, 2nd Edition (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 55.
11
Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967),
27.
6
This brings us back to the proposition that no one [in human groups] can become
a complete social person if he is not presentable as legitimately fathered as well
as mothered. He must have a demonstrable pater, ideally one who is individually
specified as his responsible upbringer, for he must be equipped to relate himself
to other persons and to society at large bilaterally, by both matri-kinship and
patri-kinship. Lacking either side, he will be handicapped, either in respect of the
ritual statuses and moral capacities that every complete person must have … or in
the political-jural and economic capacities and attributes that are indespensable
for conducting himself as a normal right-and-duty bearing person.
The British anthropologist Meyer Fortes, concluding that the communal

achievement of “bilateral filiation” stands as a universal, foundational
social purpose of marriage as a human institution, 1969 12
Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and

encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children.
The anthropologist Suzanne G. Frayser, 1985 13
Marriage, as the socially recognized linking of a specific man to a specific woman

and her offspring, can be found in all societies. Through marriage, children can
be assured of being born to both a man and a woman who will care for them as
they mature.
The historian of marriage Robina G. Quayle, 1988 14
Granted that the unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social
recognition and approval, one must still ask, approval of what? The answer is
that it is approval of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and
rearing offspring.
University of Southern California sociologist and family scholar Kingsely

Davis, 1985.15
12
Meyer Fortes, “Filiation Reconsidered,” in Fortes, Kinship and the Social Order (Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company, 1969), 261-262. For these reasons, Fortes also (p. 253) defines filiation as “the
relationship created by the fact of being the legitimate child of one’s parents.”
13
Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on Human
Sexuality (New Haven, CT: HRAF Press, 1985), 248.
14
Robina G. Quale, A History of Marriage Systems (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988), 2.
15
Kingsley Davis, “The Meaning and Significance of Marriage in Contemporary Society,” in Davis (ed.),
Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage,
1985), 5.
7
People wed primarily to reproduce.
The anthropologist Helen E. Fisher, 1992 16
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman such that children
borne by the woman are recognized as the legitimate offspring of both partners.
Probably the most widely cited and influential definition of marriage in

the history of world anthropology, prepared by a committee of
distinguished scholars, and intended as a practical guide for trained
anthropologists doing field work, 1951 17
The universality of some order of incest taboo is of course directly connected with
the fact that the nuclear family is also universal to all known human societies. The
minimum criteria for the nuclear family are, I suggest, first that there should be a
solidary relationship between mother and child lasting over a period of years and
transcending physical care in its significance. Second, in her motherhood of this
child the woman should have a special relationship to a man outside her own
descent group who is sociologically the “father” of the child, and that this
relationship is the focus of the “legitimacy” of the child, of his referential status
in the larger kinship system. The common sense of social science has tended to
see in the universality and constancy of structure of the nuclear family a simple
reflection of its biological function and composition: sexual reproduction, the
generation difference and the differentiation by sex in the biological sense.
Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons, 1954 18
Marriage, it will be objected, is a cultural institution. Therefore it is wrong to

confuse it with sex. After all, much sex takes place outside of marriage, and
conversely, sex is only a small part of marriage. Here I shall argue that, while
this is all true, marriage is nevertheless the cultural codification of a biological
program. Marriage is the socially sanctioned pair-bond for the avowed social
purpose of procreation.
The evolutionary anthropologist Pierre van den Berghe, 1979 19
16
Helen E. Fisher, Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce (New
York: W. W. Norton, 1992), 102.
17
Notes and Queries on Anthropology, 6th Edition (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1951), 71.
18
Talcott Parsons, “The Incest Taboo in Relation to Social Structure and the Socialization of the Child,”
The British Journal of Sociology 5, no. 2 (June 1954): 102.
19
Pierre van den Berghe, Human Family Systems (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1979), 46.
8
Marriage on the whole is rather a contract for the production and maintenance of
children than an authorization of sexual intercourse.
Bronislaw Malinowski, 1962 20
We are thus led at all stages of our argument to the conclusion that the institution
of marriage is primarily determined by the needs of the offspring, by the
dependence of the children upon their parents.
21
Malinowski, 1962
Conception must be socially authorized.
Dr. L. P. Mair, discussing the fundamental purposes of marriage in Africa,

1953 22
Before concluding this brief sketch of the main distinctive features of African
customary marriage, we must not omit to mention the emphasis laid on
procreation as the chief end of marriage.
Arthur Phillips, the director of the Survey of African Marriage and Family
Life, 1953 23
The emphasis given in this account to the sexual and reproductive aspects of
marriage reflects the great importance that the Walbiri themselves attribute to
them. Ideally, reproduction exclusively concerns jurally-recognized spouses, and
in fact little latitude about this norm is permitted. Extra-marital intercourse is
regarded somewhat more tolerantly, provided it does not endanger the marriages
of the people concerned.
The anthropologist M. J. Meggitt, discussing marriage among the Walbiri

people, an Aboriginal tribe in Central Australia, 1962 24
20
Bronislaw Malinowski, Sex, Culture, and Myth (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., 1962), 4.
21
Ibid., 11.
22
L. P. Mair, “African Marriage and Social Change,” in Arthur Phillips (ed.), Survey of African Marriage
and Family Life (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 3.
23
Arthur Phillips, “An Introductory Essay,” in Arthur Phillips (ed.), Survey of African Marriage and
Family Life (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), xvii.
24
M. J. Meggitt, Desert People (Sydney, Australia: Angus and Robertson, 1962), 108.
9
With a … [decree], I made the father support his children. I made the child
support his father. I made the father stand by his children. I made the child stand
by his father.
Lipit-Ishtar, the ruler of Sumer and Akkad, in one of the earliest surviving
legal codes in human history regarding the question of “What is
marriage?”, about 1900 BCE 25
Conjugal Society is made by a voluntary Compact between Man and Woman: and
tho’ it consists chiefly in such a Communion and Right in one anothers Bodies, as
is necessary to its chief end, Procreation; yet it draws with it mutual Support, and
Assistance, and a Community of Interest too, as necessary to unite not only their
Care, and Affection, but also necessary to their common Off-spring, who have a
right to be nourished and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for
themselves.
John Locke, the philosophical father of Anglo-American liberalism,

169826
But for children, there would be no need of any institution connected with sex, but
as soon as children enter in, husband and wife, if they have any sense of
responsibility or any affection for their offspring, are compelled to realize that
their feelings toward each other are no longer what is of most importance … [I]t
is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society,
and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.
The Nobel Prize-winning mathematician, philosopher, and social critic

(who was no friend of conventional sexual morality) Bertrand Russell,
1929 27
Generally, the history of the marital institution is above all else (if not
exclusively) that of a procreative function where the major issue is ensuring the
survival of the group, and thus the personal desires of the individuals are
sacrificed to that cause. At yet something else is equally at stake: marriage is a
social act not only because it ensures procreation, but because it also allows man
and woman to accede simultaneously to social creativity, and this necessitates a
conscious commitment on their part … through marriage, the most intimate
aspect of existence is linked by a public act of commitment to the social
25
Laws of Lipit-Ishtar, Prologue, in Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 25.
26
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1965; first
published 1698), 319.
27
Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1929), 64, 125.
10
responsibility of the spouses. In this respect, we can say that man and woman, by
marrying, renounce marrying only for their own sakes.
The historian and theologian Eric Fuchs, 1983 28
… the family [is] based on a union, more or less durable, but socially approved,
of two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise
children.
The famous anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, 1985 29
Marriage was not instituted to legalize heterosexuality, but to regulate filiation.
The French feminist philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, 2001 30
24. Every child is a mother’s child.
25. Every child is a father’s child.
26. To encompass this fundamental human fact and aspiration, marriage.
27. It is possible to demonstrate empirically, and beyond any doubt, that this
view of marriage’s core purposes is the only valid view? No.
28. It is possible to demonstrate empirically, and beyond any reasonable

doubt, that this view of marriage’s core purposes is consistent with much of the most
respected scholarship of the modern era, and that this view not only can be, but has been
and is still, widely embraced by intelligent, fair-minded leaders and citizens of good will,
both in the United States and around the world, who from all available indicators appear
to bear no animosity toward their fellow citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation?
I am absolutely certain that the answer is yes.
28
Eric Fuchs, Sexual Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality and
Marriage (New York: The Seabury Press, 1983), 185-186.
29
Claude Levi-Strauss, The View from Afar (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 40-41.
30
Sylviane Agacinski, Parity of the Sexes (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), xiii-xiv.
11
Why Does Marriage Regulate Filiation?
29. If this view of marriage’s core purposes in human societies is at least valid
– if scholars and others of good will from around the world can rationally and humanely
conclude that marriage is fundamentally a pro-child social institution, anchored in
socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man – the next logical
question is, Why? Why would this institution be structured in such a particular way, and
so decisively oriented to this particular purpose? More specifically for our present
purposes, why does this universal human institution focus with such precision and
insistence on bringing together the male and female of the species into a common life?
Religion?
30. Is this central feature of human marriage an artifact of Judeo-Christian

religious teaching, or of religion generally? No.
31. On this point there is no serious disagreement among competent scholars.

Marriage as a man-woman bond is fundamentally a natural and social institution – what
the famous anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss calls “a social institution with a biological
foundation”31 – that exists in all or nearly human societies. Marriage was not created by
religion, and marriage as a cross-cultural human institution certainly does not owe its
definition or existence to any particular religion, or to religion in general. Obviously in
many societies (including our own) religion does influence marriage. Indeed, religion
influences nearly every important sphere of human life. But to suggest that man-woman
marriage is in any meaningful sense a “religious institution” – created by and intelligible
to only those people who embrace a certain religious doctrine – is simply and
fundamentally untrue.
Homophobia?
32. Alternatively, is this core feature of human marriage an artifact of

homophobia? No.
33. I answer “no” to this question not because I believe that homophobia is a
small or isolated or insignificant or benign component of U.S. and world culture – I
strongly believe the exact opposite – but rather because the historical and ethnographic
record of human marriage strongly suggests that marriage’s fundamental anchor and
organizing principle is embodiment, not orientation.
31
Claude Levi-Strauss, “Introduction,” in Andre Burguiere, Christiane Klapish-Zuber, Martine Segalen,
and Francoise Zonabend (eds.), A History of the Family: Vol. 1, Distant Worlds, Ancient Worlds
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 5.
12
34. Traditional marriage is institutionally alive to the hard facticity of sexual

embodiment and, flowing from it, sexual reproduction. Regarding the subjective and
often complex issue of sexual orientation, marriage is institutionally deaf, blind, and
dumb. It doesn’t ask, tell, require, record, stipulate, accept, judge, or reject on the basis of
individual sexual desire.
35. Marriage exists for public purposes that can be, and have been, quite
clearly specified. There is little if any credible scholarly evidence to suggest that
promoting or protecting homophobia is one of those public purposes.
Child Well-Being?
36. The answer to our question is simple. According to a large and ever-
growing body of scholarly evidence, humans institute marriage consciously to regulate
filiation because humans favor the survival and success of the human child.
37. Consider some representative examples of leading scholars articulating the

core bases of this answer:
Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the
family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological
parents in a low-conflict marriage.
A team of scholars from Child Trends, a non-partisan, left-of-center

research group, 2002 32
Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the
presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.
Child Trends, 2002 33
Children raised by both biological parents are less likely than children raised in
single- or step-parent families to be poor, to drop out of school, to have difficulty
finding a job, to become teen parents or to experience emotional or behavioral
problems.
A report from the National Council on Family Relations, 2003 34
32
Kristin Anderson Moore, et. al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect
Children, and What Can We Do about It? (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, June 2002): 1-2.
33
Ibid., 6.
13
From a child’s point of view, according to a growing body of social research, the
most supportive household is one with the two biological parents in a low-conflict
marriage.
New York Times, page one story describing the emergence of a “powerful
consensus” among social scientists, 2001 35
Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse
off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their
biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background,
regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and
regardless of whether the parent remarries.
The family sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, 1994 36
Research clearly demonstrates the children growing up with two continuously

married parents are less likely than other children to experience a wide range of
cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood, but also in
adulthood. Although it is not possible to demonstrate that family structure is the
cause of these differences, studies that have used a variety of sophisticated
statistical methods, including controls for genetic factors, suggest that this is the
case. This distinction is even stronger if we focus on children growing up with two
happily married biological parents.
The family sociologist Paul Amato, 2005 37
Based on accumulated social research, there can now be little doubt that
successful and well-adjusted children in modern societies are most likely to come
from families consisting of the biological father and mother.
The family sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University, 1999 38
34
Marriage Promotion in Low-Income Familes (Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations, April
2003).
35
“2-Parent Families Rise After Change in Welfare Laws,” New York Times, August 12, 2001.
36
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 1.
37
Paul R. Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional
Well-Being of the Next Generation,” The Future of Children 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 89-90.
38
David Popenoe, “Can the Nuclear Family be Revived?”, Society 35, no. 5 (July-August, 1999),
republished in David Popenoe, War Over the Family (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005): 207.
14
A central purpose of the institution of marriage is to ensure the responsible and

long-term involvement of both biological parents in the difficult and time-
consuming task of raising the next generation.
David Popenoe, 2005 39
38. The primary division in our species is between male and female.
Scholarship reveals that marriage is the key human institution seeking to bridge that
divide, primarily so that, insofar as possible, every child’s natural parents will also be its
social parents. That is the reason, in a nutshell, why marriage is society’s most pro-child
social institution.
39. A core human and social institution such as marriage can exist over time
only if it meets basic human needs. And an institution that exists everywhere on the
planet, in addition to whatever else it may be doing in this or that specific locale, is also
obviously meeting at least one primary, cross-cultural human need. Regarding marriage,
leading scholars have clearly identified that need. If human beings were not sexually
embodied creatures who everywhere reproduce sexually and give birth to helpless,
socially needy offspring who remain immature for long periods of time and who
therefore depend decisively on the love and support of both of the parents who brought
them into existence, the world almost certainly would not include the institution of
marriage.
39
David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2005 (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University, 2005), 24.
15
Should We Deinstitutionalize Marriage?
40. One of the most important marriage trends of our era is what scholars
often call deinstitutionalization.
41. A social institution is a relatively stable pattern of rules and structures

intended to meet basic social (communal) needs. Accordingly, to weaken a social
institution – to deinstitutionalize it – is to take steps to dissolve or make less clear its
rules, to disassemble its basic structures, and to seek to transfer its core meaning from the
public to the private realm.
42. With respect to marriage, what are some of the specific manifestations the
trend of deinstitutionalization? Rising rates of divorce, nonmarital cohabitation, and
unwed child bearing, the loosening legal regulation of many aspects of marriage (such as
divorce), the mainstreaming of third-party participation in procreation and assisted
reproductive technologies, and the rising demand for and reality of same-sex marriage –
all of these phenomena are examples and expressions of the deinstitutionalization of
marriage.
43. Some persons strongly favor the deinstitutionalization. Others oppose the
trend, and seek what amounts to reinstitutionalization. Still others favor or at least
willingly accept some aspects of deinstitutionalization, while being more worried or
unsure about others.
44. For our present purposes, it is also important to note that prominent family
scholars on both sides of the gay marriage divide – those who favor same-sex marriage
and those who do not – acknowledge that extending equal marriage rights to gay and
lesbian couples would further, and perhaps in some respects even culminate, the
deinstitutionalization of marriage. For example, Andrew J. Cherlin of Johns Hopkins
University, a supporter of same-sex marriage, describes “the movement to legalize same-
sex marriage” as “the most recent development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage”
in the United States.40 Similarly, Norval D. Glenn of the University of Texas, who has
voiced reservations about same-sex marriage, observes the current shift in our society
from an institutional to a couple-centered conception of marriage, and points out that
acceptance of the arguments made by some advocates of same-sex marriage

would bring this trend to its logical conclusion, namely, the definition of marriage
as being for the benefit of those who enter into it rather than as an institution for
the benefit of society, the community, or any social entity larger than the couple.41
40
Andrew J. Cherlin, “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 66 (November 2004): 850.
41
Norval D. Glenn, “The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage,” Society 41, no. 6 (September-October 2004):
26.
16
45. To consider further why Cherlin and Glenn, who disagree on the policy
question, would largely agree regarding the underlying analysis, let’s pursue a bit further
the subject of rules. Why? Because many sociologists and economists suggest that an
institution’s single most important component is its rules. Accordingly, Douglass C.
North, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Economics, succinctly describes social
institutions as “the rules of the game” that “define the incentive structures of society.”
For North, institutions are
the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction. They are made
up of formal constraints (e.g., rules, laws, constitutions), informal constraints
(e.g., norms of behavior, conventions, self-imposed codes of conduct), and their
enforcement characteristics.42
46. Similarly, the eminent anthropologist and marriage scholar A. R.

Radcliffe-Brown reminds us that social institutions are “the ordering by society of the
interactions of persons in social relationships.” You know you are part of an institution
when what you encounter is not “haphazard conjunctions of individuals,” but instead
situations in which “the conduct of persons in their interactions with others is controlled
by norms, rules, or patterns.” Accordingly, a sign and consequence of participating in a
social institution is that “a person knows that he is expected to behave according to these
norms and that other persons should do the same.”43
47. What are the main “humanly devised constraints” – the main “rules of the
game” – when it comes to marriage? There are three of them. They are quite familiar.
48. The first is the rule of opposites: Marriage is a man and a woman.
49. The second is the rule of two: Marriage is for two people. 44
50. The third is the rule of sex: Marriage is socially sanctioned sex and
procreation.
51. Because each rule helps to meet the same social need – ensuring that,
insofar as possible, a child’s natural parents are also its social parents – these three core
rules naturally hang together, support one another, and therefore (to a significant degree)
depend upon one another. It seems likely that getting rid of any one of them would make
getting rid of one or both of the others significantly easier and, as a matter of logic, more
plausible.
52. Virtually by definition, embracing same-sex marriage requires us as a

society to dissolve the rule of opposites. In both law and (to a significant and growing
42
Douglass C. North, “Economic Performance Through Time,” The American Economic Review 84, no. 3
(June 1994): 360-361.
43
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1952),
10-11.
44
See Appendix B: A Note on Polygamy and Polyandry.
17
degree) in culture, it means that we must collectively remove the “male-female” part
from our legal and public understanding of what marriage is.
53. The process of deinstitutionalization is like turning off lights. We simply

turn off one light after another – we get rid of one defining idea after another – until it’s
dark enough to suit us. Removing the male-female part from our public understanding of
marriage would be to turn off marriage’s heretofore single brightest and most
unmistakable light.
54. Would such a change measurably weaken the institution of marriage over
time for all of those who participate in it? No one can know for sure. But in my view, the
most likely answer is yes. After all, to believe otherwise requires us to assume that
altering an institution’s form does not change its content. It requires us to assume that
changing a thing’s public meaning does not change the thing. And it requires us to
assume that, if we shrink marriage down to a private adult commitment, a matter in most
respects of private ordering only, we have not at the same time institutionally weakened
marriage, which always and everywhere has existed for important public purposes that
can be specified.
55. That is my studied view, based on extensive research and reflection. But
for the purposes of this declaration, I wish to rest ultimately on a much narrower
proposition, and one that I believe is more easily established and therefore less
contentious.
56. Permit me to put this proposition in the form of a question. Can intelligent,
rational scholars and other citizens of good will who by all reasonable indicators appear
not to be motivated or influenced by homophobia sincerely and plausibly believe that the
deinstitutionalization of customary marriage, up to and including allowing same-sex
marriage, constitutes a legitimately worrisome and potentially harmful social trend? I am
absolutely confident that the answer to this question is yes.
18
Goods in Conflict
Is Our Choice Good Versus Bad?
57. For so many persons on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate, the
essential intellectual, moral, and rhetorical framework is good versus bad.
Tolerance versus bigotry.
Enlightened rationalism versus religious fundamentalism.
Normal versus perverted.
Good will versus bad faith.
Moral versus immoral.
Progressive versus reactionary.
Family values versus anti-family values.
Love versus hate.
58. I reject each of these dichotomies specifically. Moreover, I also reject,

with respect to the question of changing our marriage laws to permit same-sex couples to
marry, the entire epistemology of good versus bad.
Is Our Choice Good Versus Good?
59. For me, the conflict over same-sex marriage is instead a conflict of good
versus good.
60. One good is the equal dignity of homosexual love – the idea that loving
relationships betweens persons of the same sex are equal in worth and dignity to loving
relationships betweens persons of the opposite sex. 45
45
For many – I believe most – people who strongly support same-sex marriage, the single biggest and
most deeply felt reason for supporting the reform is less about marriage per se than it is about something
else. That something else is human dignity. For these proponents, the case for same-sex marriage does
ultimately not center on what marriage is, but instead on the societal imperative of equal rights.
For these proponents, then, the essential fact on the table is equal human dignity. And therefore the
essential argument, from their point of view, is the argument for the equality of human and civil rights.
19
61. Another good is the double origin of the human child – the idea that the
human child needs and deserves, insofar as society can make it possible, to love and be
loved by the male and the female whose union brought the child into the world.46
62. Many thinkers, perhaps most notably Isaiah Berlin, the great 20th century
philosopher of liberalism, have pointed out that many important choices we face do not
involve choosing between good and bad, but between good and good.
63. Berlin’s concept of goods in conflict is central to my understanding of

society’s need to make choices regarding the definition of marriage. 47 One good is the
equal dignity of homosexual love. Another good is my right as a child to the mother and
father who made me.
64. Today, in this debate, these goods are at least partially in conflict. In my
view, working out that agonizing conflict lies at the very heart of the debate on same-sex
marriage.
Which Good Do We Favor?
65. I endorse the goal of gaining social recognition of the equality dignity of
homosexual love.
46
The term “double origin” comes from the feminist philosopher Sylviane Agacinski. Agacinski refuses all
propositions, including the proposition of gay marriage, that would deny this fact and (from the child’s
point of view) this birthright. For example, she tells an interviewer: “I think there is no absolute right to a
child, since the right implies an increasingly artificial fabrication of children. In the interests of the child,
one cannot efface its double origin.” In her important book, Parity of the Sexes, Agacinski examines the
consequences of disconnecting legal from natural parenthood and of insisting that marriage is no longer
based on male-female reunion. For example, she points out that
if we suspend [i.e., seek to deny] sexual duality, there is no longer any reason why there must be
two and only two parents. Why not three fathers, or four mothers? The binary model for the
couple is not produced by love or pleasure, but by sexuation, that is, genital differentiation. There
are not two parents because they love each other, but because heterogeneity of the race is
necessary and sufficient for creating life. On the other hand, sexual practices and amorous ties do
not necessarily involve either mixed partners, or even a couple’s relationship.
See Sylviane Agacinski, Parity of the Sexes (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), xiii-xiv.
Agacinski’s interview comments cited here are from “Questions autour de la filiation,” Ex aequo (July
1998), as translated from the French by Judith Butler.
47
See Isaiah Berlin, “Two Conceptions of Liberty,” in Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press, 1969); and William A. Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value
Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
20
66. But I do not endorse changing our marriage laws to achieve that good
goal.
67. We as a society can, and in my view should, accept the equal dignity of
homosexual love and the equal worth of gay and lesbian persons. But must we shrink and
restructure marriage in what are likely to be institution-maiming, child-threatening ways
in order to achieve this social progress? I do not suggest that the answer is easy. But to
me, and I believe to many scholars and others of good will, the answer is no.
21
Where’s the Harm?
Please clarify for me: How exactly would my marrying my partner of more than
four years threaten the institution of marriage?
Letter to the Editor, USA Today, February 23, 2004
68. Here, in my view, is my main general answer to this question.
69. Permitting same-sex marriage almost certainly would mean the further,
and in some respects full, deinstitutionalization of marriage. Deinstitutionalization may
not require same-sex marriage, but scholars on both sides of the policy question
recognize that same-sex marriage in important respects presupposes and requires
deinstitutionalization. Do we want, even in pursuit of a good cause, to transform
marriage possibly once and for all from a pro-child social institution into a post-
institutional private relationship? For me, and for many other scholars and leaders of
good will, the answer is no.
70. Here, in my view, are the nineteen main specific answers to this question.
1. Adopting same-sex marriage would likely contribute significantly to changing the

public meaning of marriage from a structured social form to a private relationship,
from an institution with defined social purposes to a right of personal expression.
2. To the degree that adopting same-sex marriage requires the further

deinstitutionalization of marriage, adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to
contribute over time to a further social devaluation of marriage, as expressed
primarily in lower marriage rates, higher rates of divorce and non-marital
cohabitation, and more children raised outside of marriage and separated from at
least one of their natural parents.
3. Accepting same-sex marriage would require explicit public endorsement of the

idea that a child does not really need a mother and a father. The main likely
consequence would be fewer children growing up with fathers.
4. Legally permitting same-sex marriage would eradicate in law and weaken further
in culture the idea that what society favors – that what is typically best for child
and the community – is the natural mother married to the natural father, together
raising the child. This change would likely result over time in smaller proportions
of children being raised by their own, married mothers and fathers.
5. Same-sex marriage would likely mean, to some measurable degree, publicly

replacing the idea that parenting is largely gendered (the sex of the parent matters
a lot) with the idea that parenting is largely unisex (the sex of the parent is not
22
very important). The main likely consequence would be that fewer men will
believe that it is important for them to become active, hands-on parents.
6. Adopting same-sex marriage probably means supporting and subsidizing a range

of reproductive technologies – including donor insemination, the sale of eggs,
contract pregnancy, and other forms of third-party-participant procreation, as well
as newer technologies up to and likely soon including reproductive cloning and
creating a child from the genetic material of two persons of the same sex – all of
which share one feature: almost by definition, the resulting child will not be raised
by her own mother and father.
7. Adopting same-sex marriage will likely contribute to replacing the norm of the
natural parent with the norm of the legal parent. The two main probable
consequences of this change would be a growing disjuncture between the
biological and the legal-social dimensions of parenthood and, relatedly, a
significant expansion of the power of the state to determine who is a parent.
8. A likely consequence of shifting from a man-woman to a two-person conception

of marriage is that U.S. law will effectively be viewing the homosexual
experience, rather than the heterosexual experience, as its baseline model for
evaluating the meaning and public purposes of marriage.
9. Social acceptance of same-sex marriage would likely increase the social

acceptability of other alternative marriage forms, in particular polyamory and
polygamy.
10. Adopting same-sex marriage would legally enshrine the principle that sexual
orientation (as opposed to sexual embodiment) is a valid determinant of
marriage’s structure and meaning – even though orientation, compared to
embodiment, is more subjective and complex, arguably much more fluid, and a
subject about which our social understanding remains fragmentary and
provisional.
11. If same-sex orientation becomes a legitimate grounding for same-sex marriage, it

is likely that bisexual orientation could become a legitimate grounding for group
marriage.
12. Adopting same-sex marriage would likely require all relevant branches and
agencies of government formally to replace the idea that marriage centers on
opposite-sex bonding and male-female procreation with the idea that marriage is a
private relationship between two consenting adults.
13. Same-sex marriage would likely mean that the public socialization of
heterosexual young people into a marriage culture – in children’s books and
entertainments, in church teachings, in school curricula, in youth organizations,
and in the popular culture – would either end altogether or be significantly diluted
23
in order to avoid what would have become the possibly illegal suggestion that
marriage fundamentally concerns heterosexual bonding and procreation.
14. Adopting same-sex marriage might cause many Americans who dissent on gay
marriage to abandon some or all of those public institutions that champion the
new definition of marriage and declare that the old one is morally and legally
repugnant, probably resulting in the weakening of those institutions and a further
rending of our common culture.
15. The redefinition of marriage from man-woman to two persons implies that the
understanding of marriage embraced by millions of orthodox Christian, Jewish,
and Muslim Americans will no longer be legally or morally acceptable, thereby
probably forcing many of these Americans to choose between being a believer
and being a good citizen.
16. Adopting same-sex marriage might lead to new state-imposed restrictions of

religious freedom and freedom of expression.
17. Adopting same-sex marriage might mean that some religious organizations now
receiving public support to provide services to the poor and to others will no
longer provide them, due to state disqualification over refusing programmatically
to endorse same-sex marriage.
18. Adopting same-sex marriage could contribute to the public belief that marriage in
our society is now politicized.
19. To the degree that adopting same-sex marriage means that marriage under the law
becomes primarily a right of intimate expression, largely disconnected from
defined public purposes, unmarried people might increasingly, and logically,
complain that the legal and practical benefits currently attached to marriage
properly belong to everyone, not just married people. Many single people also
have interdependent personal relationships.
Conclusion
71. A broad consensus of the leading scholars suggests that, across history and
cultures, marriage is fundamentally a pro-child social institution, anchored in socially
approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man.
72. Marriage in important respects is also a private, affective adult

relationship. No one denies this significant dimension of marriage. But scholarship
clearly shows that marriage in human groups is fundamentally a set of fairly stable social
rules and forms intended to solve key communal problems and meet key communal
needs. The key problem that marriage aims to solve is the problem of sexual embodiment
24
Index of Materials Considered
1. Anthropological Quarterly, Volume 71 Number 1, January 1998
2. Douglas Allen, An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws, Harvard

Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc., Summer, 2006.
3. Sylviane Agacinski, Parity of the Sexes (New York: Columbia University Press,
2001), xiii-xiv
4. Paul R. Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social,
and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,” The Future of Children 15, no. 2
(Fall 2005): 89-90.
5. Alan Barnard, “Rules and Prohibitions: The Form and Content of Human Kinship,” in
Tim Ingold (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology (London: Routledge,
1994).
6. Barbara Barrett, Does Gay Marriage Need Government’s Help? The News and
Observer (Raleigh), January 19, 2004.
7. Isaiah Berlin, “Two Conceptions of Liberty,” in Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty

(Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1969), xvii
8. “Brief of the Professors …” Lewis v. Harris, Supreme Court of New Jersey, Docket
58389 (Newark, October 6, 2005), 1-2, 16.
9. Declaration of A. Dean Byrd in Support of CCF’s Motion for Summary Judgment, In

the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, No. 04-428794.
10. Declaration of Allan C. Carlson in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment/Summary Adjudication, In the Superior Court of the County of San
Francisco, No. 04-428794.
11. CCF’s Request for Judicial Notice, In the Superior Court of the County of San
12. Declaration of Alan Chambers in Support of CCF’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
In the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, No. 04-428794.
13. Andrew J. Cherlin, “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage,” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 66 (November 2004): 850.
14. Declaration of Nancy F. Cott in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, in the Superior Court of the State of California, No. 04-428794
15. Declaration of Nancy F. Cott in Support of City and County of San Francisco’s
Constitutional Challenge to Marriage Statutes, In the Superior Court of the State of
California, No. 429-539.
16. Kingsley Davis, “The Meaning and Significance of Marriage in Contemporary

Society,” in Davis (ed.), Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a
Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage, 1985).
17. Defendant-Intervenors’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgement, and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Case. No. 09-2292.
18. William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (New York: The Free
Press, 1996).
19. Helen E. Fisher, Anatomy of Love (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992).
20. Meyer Fortes, “Filiation Reconsidered,” in Fortes, Kinship and the Social Order
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969).
21. Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Baltimore:

Penguin Books, 1967).
22. Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological

Perspective on Human Sexuality (New Haven, CT: HRAF Press, 1985).
23. Eric Fuchs, Sexual Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethic of
Sexuality and Marriage (New York: The Seabury Press, 1983).
24. Declaration of Maggie Gallagher in Support of CCF’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, In the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, No. 04-428794.
25. William A. Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for
Political Theory and Practice (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
26. Gay Marriage Debate will steer votes, USA Today, February 23, 2004.
27. Norval D. Glenn, “The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage,” Society 41, no. 6
(September-October 2004).
28. Kathleen Gough, “Nayar: Central Kerala,” in David M. Schneider and Kathleen
Gough (eds.), Matrilineal Kinship (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1961)..
29. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural
Selection (New York: Pantheon, 1999).
30. Claude Levi-Strauss, The View from Afar (New York: Basic Books, 1985).
31. Claude Levi-Strauss, “Introduction,” in Andre Burguiere, Christiane Klapish-Zuber,

Martine Segalen, and Francoise Zonabend (eds.), A History of the Family: Vol. 1,
Distant Worlds, Ancient Worlds (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).
32. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press, 1965; first published 1698).
33. Bronislaw Malinowski, Sex, Culture, and Myth (New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
World, Inc., 1962).
34. Bronislaw Malinowski, The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia

(Boston: Beacon Press, 1987; first published 1929).
35. Marriage Promotion in Low-Income Familes (Minneapolis: National Council on

Family Relations, April 2003).
36. M. J. Meggitt, Desert People (Sydney, Australia: Angus and Robertson, 1962).
37. Kristin Anderson Moore, et. al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does
Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It? (Washington, D.C.:
Child Trends, June 2002).
38. Declaration of Steven L. Nock in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, in the Superior Court of the State of California, No. 428-794.
39. Declaration of Steven L. Nock in Support of San Francisco’s Reply to State of

California’s Opposition to Petition for Write of Mandate, in the Superior Court of the
State of California, No. 428-794.
40. Douglass C. North, “Economic Performance Through Time,” The American

Economic Review 84, no. 3 (June 1994).
41. Notes and Queries on Anthropology, 6th Edition (London: Routledge and Keegan
Paul, 1951).
42. See Opinion of the Justices, in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health (Boston:
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, November 18, 2003).
43. Talcott Parsons, “The Incest Taboo in Relation to Social Structure and the
Socialization of the Child,” The British Journal of Sociology 5, no. 2 (June 1954).
44. Declaration of Ellen Perrin in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, in the Superior Court of the State of California, No. 428-794.
45. L. P. Mair, “African Marriage and Social Change,” in Arthur Phillips (ed.), Survey of
African Marriage and Family Life (London: Oxford University Press, 1953).
46. David Popenoe, “Can the Nuclear Family be Revived?”, Society 35, no. 5 (July-
August, 1999), republished in David Popenoe, War Over the Family (New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005).
47. David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2005 (New
Brunswick: Rutgers University, 2005).
48. Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of CCF’s Motion for
Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication of Issues, In the
Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, No. 04-428794.
49. Robina G. Quale, A History of Marriage Systems (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1988).
50. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society (Glencoe, IL: The
Free Press, 1952).
51. Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and
Good for America (New York: Times Books, 2004).
52. Declaration of George A. Rekers In Support of Proposition 22’s Motion for Summary
53. Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1929).
54. Crispin Sartwell, “’Marriage amendment’ a threat to Constitution,” Philadelphia

Inquirer, February 25, 2004.
55. Declaration of Jeffrey Satinover in Support of Proposition 22’s Motion for Summary
56. Declaration of Jeffrey Satinover in Support of Proposition 22’s Motion for Summary
57. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995).
58. Declaration of Randy Thomas in Support of CCF’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
In the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, No. 04-428794.
59. Pierre van den Berghe, Human Family Systems (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press, 1979).
60. Peter J. Wilson, Man the Promising Primate: The Conditions of Human Evolution,
2nd Edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
61. Evan Wolfson, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to
Marry (New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004).

3:09-cv-02292 #286

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3:09-cv-02292 #286

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document286 Filed12/07/09 Page1 of 3

1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 I, Rebecca Justice Lazars, declare as follows:

5 Zarilo(collectively, "Plaintiffs") in the above-captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the

12 certified transcript of the deposition of David Blanenhorn, taken on November 3, 2009.

20 Blanenhorn ("Declaration of David Blanenhorn as Expert Witness for Defendant").

1 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

Gibson, Dunn &

09-CV-2292 VRW ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v. CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

SCHWARZENEGGER, et al. DECLARATION OF

I, Katherine Young, declare as follows:

3. The purpose of this declaration is to provide my evidence, as an expert in

8. Same-sex relationships are indeed worthy of respect. But “same-sex

9. As a full professor in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill

phenomenon so common as to be universal or nearly universal surely reveals something

General comments on comparative religion

20. Scholars in comparative religion study the worldviews of both small-scale

22. Using the comparative method, scholars in my field examine traditions to

Marriage as a norm from the perspective of comparative religion

The universal features of marriage

32. Based on a comparative study of the marriage norms of those world

Specific universal features

44. Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that the opposite-sex requirement

Differences between same-sex relationships and (opposite-sex) marriages

48. Advocates for same-sex “marriage” emphasize similarities between same-

51. Someone could argue that partners in long-term relationships generally

Likely effects of legalizing same-sex marriage on children

Exacerbating the identity problem of men

Katherine K. Young, James McGill Professor

GRANTS, HONOURS, AND AWARDS

ADMINISTRATION AND ACADEMIC SERVICE

International, National, and Provincial Committees: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

MEDIA AND PRINT INTERVIEWS

PUBLICATIONS: ETHICS AND LAW

E 2007. Human Rights. RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D.Cush, C.

In press, under contract, or accepted for publication

E 2007. Women’s Question/Social Evils. Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Eds. D. Cush, C.

C 2002. “Introduction.” Methodologies in Religious Studies: The Interface with Women’s

HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM: PUBLICATIONS

C 2006. “Brahmaṇas, Pancaratrins, and the Formation of Srivaisnavism.” Studies in Hinduism,

In press or accepted for publication

Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, “From Religion to Secularity: A Continuum of

ETHICS AND LAW

HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM

2009 Invited Lecture “Negotiating Śrīvaiṣṇava Identity, Canonizing Place” Interational

2000. Invited speaker at the conference “Encounter of Civilizations” at Carleton University.

Index of Past Testimony

• Varnum v. Brien, No. CV-5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. 2007).

Index of Material Considered

4. Defendant-Intervenors’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, and

5. Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard P. Appelbaum, Introduction to

8. Halpern v. Canada (A.G.) (2003) O.A.C. 172

17. Bruce G. Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study (Cambridge:

24. Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. “Redefining Marriage or Deconstructing

29. Katherine Young, Definition of “Transdidciplinarity”, in Transdisciplinarity: Recreating

31. Susanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERRY, et al., CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

EXPERT REPORT OF LOREN MARKS