Nearly 25 Percent of Gay Couples in DFW Are Raising Kids, One of the Top Rates in the Country

Governor Rick Perry address the Texas Faith and Family Rally yesterday in Austin. Photo: Facebook
Governor Rick Perry address the Texas Faith and Family Rally yesterday in Austin. Photo: Facebook

As the Supreme Court hears arguments on all sides of the gay marriage debate, Texas politicians continue to spout their usual rambling talking points.

Rick Perry — Proponents of gay marriage “want to silence the religious in the name of tolerance. Where is the tolerance in that? Somewhere along the way we lost our way, not to mention our common sense.”

Ted Cruz —  “The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide upon marriage and I hope the Supreme Court respects centuries of tradition and doesn’t step into the process of setting aside state laws that make the definition of marriage.”

Greg Abbott — “Texas has stood firm on this issue because we don’t care how they define marriage on the East Coast or West Coast, because in Texas, marriage remains a union between one man and one woman.”

The problem, Mr. Abbott, is that that’s not entirely true. Many people in this state do care how they define marriage on the East Coast or West Coast. (And where does his comment leave the fine folks of Iowa?) Burnt Orange Report yesterday reminded us of a 2011 Atlantic piece that found that San Antonio, DFW, and Houston have three of the highest percentages of gay couples raising children under the age of 18. Not East Coast or West Coast cities, Texas cities.

San Antonio-New Braunfels had the highest percentage in the country (33.9 percent), Houston-Sugar Land- Baytown had the seventh-highest (27.2 percent), and Dallas- Fort Worth-Arlington had the twelfth-highest (24.9 percent). Forty-five percent of heterosexual couples are raising children nationwide, the Census Bureau reports.

Before any politician decries gay marriage from a family-values standpoint, they should take a look at the gay families that already exist in the cities they represent.


  • TheSlowPath

    San Antonio, DFW, and Houston have three of the highest percentages of gay couples raising couples under the age of 18…couples raising couples?

  • Kk.

    Typo “gay couples raising couples under the age of 18”

  • BradfordPearson

    Got it. Thanks folks.

  • Dubious Brother

    The latest census report found that about 1% of the population was gay and the Atlantic piece said 4%. That is a pretty big difference and makes me doubt the 24.9% stat. I am not gay and that is not my crowd but I lived in and around Oak Lawn for several years and do not know of any gay couples raising children. I’m not saying they aren’t out there but I would have noticed one in four. Maybe they forgot to survey Oak Lawn.

    • Darren

      DB, very few families, gay or straight, live in Oak Lawn. Check out the suburbs. That’s where you will find them.

  • Darren

    Firty-five percent? Is that the new math that old people like Tim complain about?

  • Tim Rogers

    Firty-five is my new favorite number. (Sorry, Bradford. Yes, I know. I could have just fixed it. Couldn’t help myself.)

    • BradfordPearson

      Cot damn. This proves that I should not write posts immediately before lunch.

  • Dubious Brother

    That is my point exactly. The article talks about 25% of gay couples are raising children but it seems that they excluded the gay couples in the predominately gay areas. If you survey Black families in University Park you would find that they are predominately married and have a pretty good income but I don’t think that would be representative of Dallas. The gay movement has been based on phony statistics from the start. The press used to tell us that 10% of the population was gay until the census people started keeping track and suddenly it was 1%.

  • Eric

    “Texas politicians continue to spout their usual rambling talking points.”

    Wh-what? You consider the quotes you included spouting and rambling? Dood. Of course, no bias in your post. No rambling at all about statistics. And by the way, studies show that 63% of statistics are made up.
    You want numbers? How about this: you’re arguing that somewhere between 96 and 99% of Americans should re-define marriage to accommodate 1-4% of the population. Nice, comrade….

  • FIJ

    Funny how guys like Cruz still try to hide bigotry behind the states’ rights crap, as if civil rights didn’t completely expose that tactic.

    • my2cents

      Are you saying that if you think it is a states right issue then you are a bigot? Historically, many things were, appropriately, left to the states (hence the reserved powers clause). Maybe instead of being a bigot he just thinks that it should be decided by the states. While I think his opinion on this issue is wrong, I don’t think those with the same opinion are de facto bigots.

    • Dubious Brother

      When it comes to abortion it is not states’s rights but when it comes to legalizing pot it is states’s rights and when it comes to gay marriage it is bigotry hiding behind states’ rights crap. I think we should just redefine gender and let people choose whether they want to be classified as a man or a woman then you don’t have to redefine marriage.

  • Liz Johnstone

    Even if it is, as you call it, “re-defining” marriage, how exactly would it affect you and your (presumably) heterosexual relationship? How does it force you to “re-define” how you live your life? The government isn’t your pulpit, and legalizing same-sex marriage isn’t about accommodating anyone, though I’d love to see you apply this statistics game to the percentage of white people who feel like getting hitched to someone of a different race. It’s about equality under the law.

  • Jack Jett

    Does it make a difference if it is 1% or 10% if all men are created equal? What sort of accomodation will be required of you if marriage is re-defined?

  • Jack Jett

    What difference does it make if it is 1% or 10% if all men are created equal?
    Also, whad sort of accomodation will be required of you if marriage is re-defined?

  • Dubious Brother

    You bring up a good point about accomodation since I still don’t know what the real gay marriage agenda is because I don’t think it is about marriage. In the countries and states that have legalized gay marriage, a very small percentage of gay couples end up taking advantage, if that is what you want to call it. I here people say that married hetero couples have 200 plus perks or benefits that other couples don’t have. No one has been able to list those and I sure can’t.
    Therefore, I don’t know if this whole gay marriage thing is a distraction, an attack against organized religion, a way to get attention for a few people who crave it, an attack against marriage itself, a way for divorce attorneys to get more business or is it about money which is usually the end game and how does that come into play.

  • Mike

    Actually, government is involved in marriage precisely because it is a pulpit, it’s only purpose being involved in marriage is to shape society by rewarding marriage with certain benefits and denying those benefits to people who aren’t married in order to encourage marriage.

    So if we were really talking about equality we’d be talking about giving all adults the opportunity to marry and receive those benefits, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out today there will still be lots of adults like polygamists who won’t be allowed to marry even if gay marriage is allowed, or we’d be talking about removing marriage from the governments purview altogether and actually letting any adult marry any other adult they wanted to, true equality.

    But we’re not talking about either of those things because this isn’t about equality, it’s about two sides arguing about who gets to use the pulpit of government to shape society.

  • BND

    Four words: inheritance and estate taxes. BFD for surviving partners that get with massive tax levies they would not face if the government recognized their unions.

  • Liz Johnstone

    Dubious Brother, nothing about your comment makes sense. On a personal note, I know gay men and women who are deeply religious. These men and women want more than anything to be part of an organized religion, not tear it apart. And I have the right to get married. I’m currently not married. But boy does it sure does feel nice to know that down the road if and when some poor guy feels like lashing himself to me for life, I have that option. At that point in time, my heterosexual, happy, money-loving self will be delighted to reap the financial benefits of the union. It’s ridiculous to say that people in America shouldn’t have the right to marry because folks in other countries aren’t “taking advantage” of the magical gift of equality bestowed upon them by the government when it should have been their right all along. Get married, or don’t. The institution isn’t going anywhere, for anyone.

    Similarly, I have the right to go buy a gun. I choose not to. And that’s for me to decide, not you.

  • Cooper Koch

    1) The census doesn’t actually track gay people. Congress made sure that sexual orientation wasn’t a question on the last one. The Census simply derives those statistics from households that have two non-related men or two non-related women living together. Totally misses single gays. In other words, totally underreported.

    2) My partner of 14 years and I adopted two children four years ago. Never would we live in Oak Lawn, just as straight people would never raise children in Uptown or The Village. It’s simply not a kid-friendly environment and the housing stock is too small. Gays with kids live everywhere else that married people with kids live: Kessler Park, Lakewood, Park Cities, Preston Hollow, Plano, Frisco, etc.

    3) Even most single gay people don’t live in Oak Lawn anymore. Haven’t for decades. That’s just where the gay bars and the older generation of gays are. Most younger, single gays who stay near downtown are in Uptown, downtown, Oak Cliff and the Knox-Henderson/Mockingbird. Same as any other single people, gay or straight.

  • Dubious Brother

    Ok – so for unmarried gay couples that have accumulated more than $5,000,000 in assets that may apply but they can still leave or gift to their partner $5 million without any tax. I’m not sure what percentage of gay people that applies to but the rules are the same for unmarried hetero people as well. This is no reason to redefine marriage but a good reason to get rid of the estate tax for good which the Republicans want as opposed to the Democrats who want to reduce the tax free amount from $5 million to $1 million.

  • Cooper Koch

    If the Republicans in Congress really believed fully in states rights, they would all agree that DOMA is a bad law. If the federal government is to defer to each state to handle issues like marriage as they wish, then the federal government should also be compelled to fully recognize the final result of each state’s actions. If New York legalizes gay marriage, then those couples who marry in New York should be considered married by the IRS and all other areas of the US government.

  • Dubious Brother

    I’m sorry you don’t understand my comment but I have some free advice for you. You talk about a “poor guy” lashing himself to your “money-loving self.” My advice: don’t let the poor guy lash – it will save both of you a lot of anxious moments.

  • Randy McCluer

    Agree with most of this, but would like to point out that there are quite a few people raising kids in Uptown now, myself included. Until recently, our complex of 18 units had 9 kids under the age of 4. Cole Park is packed every day & weekend with kids, many of them local.

  • Dubious Brother

    You do not describe the Oak Lawn where I have lived which is still predominately gay including young – I am surrounded. The local schools are filled with Black and Mexican children from the surrounding area.

  • Liz Johnstone

    Dubious Brother, I just have to reply to myself on this one thanks to the limits on our commenting system. Don’t worry, I understood your comment. I’ll just repeat that it makes no sense. You can’t figure out what the gay agenda is, but you know there must be one and it’s definitely, definitely nefarious? It’s inane.

    And that’s exactly my point, and the beauty of this whole thing. You’re welcome to impart your wisdom, but I’m still free to get married if and when I want. Because I can. Your opinion on whether I’m a good catch is irrelevant. Your opinion on whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry is similarly irrelevant. You can express it, but you sure can’t arbitrate or prevent it, since it’s got absolutely nothing to do with you. However, we can revisit this particular conversation when a guy drags you kicking and screaming down the aisle.

  • Jack Jett

    Eric, I would really like to know how me marrying my partner of 20 years will re-define your marriage? Can you just give me some examples of what you might lose or how your marriage would change?
    As I see it, it would not change a thing for anyone else. It would allow us some tax breaks that other take for granted but even that wouldn’t take from another.
    As we have seen in the past, sometimes gays in the neighborhood help maintain the value of your homes. Maybe it might bring some value to your marriage.

  • Brett Moore

    Sort of like the way that they’re activist judges when they rule against you, and the judicial system at work when the rule for you, right?

  • Daniel

    “Yankees want to infringe our God-given prerogative to traffic in human slaves. How’s that for ‘human rights’?

  • Avid Reader

    Seems to be the exact same argument from both sides.

  • Dubious Brother

    There are places that you can go to get married, why don’t you do it? It is called a destination wedding and happens all the time.
    It seems to me that you are arguing for a change in the tax code not a change in the definition of marriage. The tax code is bad and unfair to most and should be dumped. Changing the definition of marriage opens up a door that government has proven all too often leads to another door which leads to another door which …….