The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother."

Pruett responded in a letter:

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, "What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex."

This week, Dobson responded to Truett in an opinion piece published in the Rocky Mountain News:

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

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

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

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