The Final Nail In Regnerus Study Coffin

Miranda Blue writes at Right Wing Watch:

In an upcoming article, a pair of sociologists are putting what they call the “final nail in the coffin” of the much-criticized study by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus that purported to show that being raised by gay and lesbian parents harms children. The Regnerus study has become a favorite tool of Religious Right activists seeking to show that households led by same-sex couples are bad for children. At the same time, the study has come under scrutiny for the funding it received from anti-gay groups and for its lack of respondents who were actually raised in same-sex parent households. Indiana University's Brian Powell and the University of Connecticut’s Simon Cheng didn’t just find methodological flaws in Regnerus’ research — they took the data he collected, cleaned it up, and redid the study, coming to a very different conclusion about families led by same-sex couples. Their article will be published in “Social Science Research,” the same journal that published the Regnerus study. By eliminating suspect data — for example, a 25-year-old respondent who claimed to be 7’8” tall, 88 pounds, married 8 times and with 8 children, and another who reported having been arrested at age 1 — and correcting what they view as Regnerus’ methodological errors, Cheng and Powell found that Regnerus’ conclusions were so “fragile” that his data could just as easily show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents don’t face negative adult outcomes.

Hit the link for much more.

Regnerus: Animus? What Animus?

"Dignity 1.0, the older conception shared by Christians, natural law theorists and others, refers to the idea that humans have 'inherent worth of immeasurable value that is deserving of certain morally appropriate responses.' Understood in this way, dignity is an inalienable value. It’s a reality. Human dignity does not become real when you start to believe in it. It remains real even when neglected or violated. It may be discerned differently across eras, but it’s not arbitrary, to be socially constructed in unique ways by collective will or vote. Resistance to others’ wish to marry someone of the same sex may harm their sense of dignity, but that’s quite distinct from damaging or compromising their real dignity. We can recognize the dignity of persons by acknowledging and respecting their freedom to form relationships, or their rights as parents. Indeed, we do. It is neither animus nor an indignity, however, to identify one relationship as a marriage, and another as not." - Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus, writing for Public Discourse.

VATICAN: Mark Regernus Revealed As Maker Of Pope Francis' Anti-Gay Films

Remember the "ex-gay" clip that I posted yesterday from the series of short films currently being shown at the Vatican's marriage symposium? Today we learn that film series was created by debunked and discredited anti-gay researcher Mark Regnerus, who was so thoroughly gelded by a Michigan court. Via Jeremy Hooper at Good As You:

A few months back, I played a clip where Mark Regnerus of the infamously shoddy study that hoped to discredit gay parents mentioned he was filming videos around the world. Today, Baptist writer and activist Denny Burk answers the question of what videos he was filming. Yes, that's right: He was filming those anti-gay videos that I have been showing you all week. You know, the ones from the pointedly discriminatory Vatican conference that has been going on for the past three days? Those anti-gay, propagandistic clips come courtesy of the very same man who tried to sway the public with an anti-gay, propagandistic study. What a truly bizarre choice. Like almost too bizarre to be believed, frankly. It seems that the Vatican isn't only courting "culture war"—it's begging for one.

(Tipped by JMG reader Str8 Grandmother)

SCOTUSblog On Michigan

Lyle Denniston writes for SCOTUSblog:

The same-sex marriage constitutional controversy reached the Supreme Court on Monday in its simplest form, testing the constitutionality of a state’s denial of a right to marry for same-sex couples. That is the sole issue raised in a new petition filed by a Michigan lesbian couple who want to marry and want the right for both parents to adopt their three children. Michigan denies both. As has happened with other cases that have reached the Court on the controversy, the lawyers for the Michigan couple contended that their case was the ideal one for review. Among other reasons, they noted that this is the one case in the group that was fully tried, developing a factual record during a nine-day trial in a Detroit federal courtroom.

With a total of four petitions filed in the six cases decided by the Sixth Circuit — the Ohio and Kentucky petitions are both joint filings in two cases — the stage is now set for the cases to be submitted to the Justices, as soon as state replies are filed in some or all of the cases. It thus appears that the cases have arrived at the Court in time — if review is, indeed, granted — to be heard and decided in the Court’s current Term. To be heard and decided before the Justices complete this Term in late June or early July, the cases would have to be ready for the Justices to consider by mid-January. With the current split among federal appeals courts, it would be most surprising for the Court to refuse to hear any of this round of cases. It is up to the Justices to accept or deny each or all of the petitions.

Michigan, it could all be up to you. And remember what the original judge in that case said: "The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."

New York Times: SCOTUS Sometimes Relies On "Facts" From Amicus Briefs

The New York Times reports that Supreme Court justices are "increasingly citing" unverified and questionable data gleaned from the avalanche of amicus briefs that typically accompany hotly contested issues.

Some of the factual assertions in recent amicus briefs would not pass muster in a high school research paper. But that has not stopped the Supreme Court from relying on them. Recent opinions have cited “facts” from amicus briefs that were backed up by blog posts, emails or nothing at all. Some amicus briefs are careful and valuable, of course, citing peer-reviewed studies and noting contrary evidence. Others cite more questionable materials. Some “studies” presented in amicus briefs were paid for or conducted by the group that submitted the brief and published only on the Internet. Some studies seem to have been created for the purpose of influencing the Supreme Court. Yet the justices are quite receptive to this dodgy data. Over the five terms from 2008 to 2013, the court’s opinions cited factual assertions from amicus briefs 124 times, Professor Larsen found. 

"Created for the purpose of influencing the Supreme Court." Regnerus, anyone? (Tipped by JMG reader Ray)

FRC Loves New Regnerus Study

New Regnerus Study: Gays Are Sluts

Discredited, debunked, and denounced researcher Mark Regnerus writes at Public Discourse:

Churchgoers who oppose same-sex marriage sense that they are out of step with the rest of the nation about sex and relationships. (The numbers above reinforce that.) And Christians who favor legalizing same-sex marriage often remain embattled with those who oppose it, and yet sense that their own views on sexuality still lag behind those gay and lesbian Christians from whom they’ve have become convinced of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. That, too, is true. Gay and lesbian Christians, in turn, have much in common with gay and lesbian non-Christians—their social circles often overlap. The sexual norms of the former are not as permissive as those of the latter but are still well above the national average in permissiveness. The latter likely constitutes a reference group for gay and lesbian Christians (together with heterosexual Christians with whom they are in fellowship). Given the rather massive divide in attitudes about sexual and romantic relationships evidenced in the table above, reference group theory—if employed here—would suggest that the current division between these groups of churchgoing Christians will remain far into the future. Even if a share of American Christians who presently oppose same-sex marriage track in more liberal directions—and it would be shrewd to presume that this will occur—those Christians who already support same-sex marriage are themselves still tracking in that same direction. And, from the looks of it, they have plenty of territory to cover yet.

Hate group leader Brian Brown has already issued a money beg based on the above chart.

Activists trying to force a redefinition of marriage on America have constantly evaded the question, "what is marriage?" Meanwhile, they have insisted that gays and lesbians simply want access to the same sacred institution of marriage and that they don't intend to change anything about that institution. But the survey responses from gay men and lesbians themselves don't support these claims. The institution envisioned by those who want to redefine marriage isn't faithful... it isn't exclusive... it isn't permanent... put bluntly, it isn't marriage. We must stand up for the truth about marriage—now more than ever—before it is "redefined" out of existence! Won't you please consider making a financial investment in the National Organization for Marriage to help us defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

The report documents that gays and lesbians have a very different view of the core values of marriage that we hold, and that have been at the heart of biblical marriage since the beginning. For example, over 80% of non-Christian gays and lesbians believe no strings attached sex is OK. Nearly 80% of them say viewing pornography is OK. Three-quarters say pre-marital cohabitation is a good idea. And an astonishing 37% say that marital infidelity is sometimes a good thing. This study should sound an alarm and serve as a wake-up call to those who want to remain silent in the face of the movement to redefine marriage, because that movement seems to correlate with a push to abandon traditional sexual morality altogether.

As we all know, the anti-gay hate industry has jumped from argument to argument in their opposition to same-sex marriage. Now that the latest claims that gays are terrible parents have been widely debunked, their next ploy appears to be proclaiming that gays are porn-crazy sluts.

EARLY REPORT: Sixth Circuit Court Judge Martha Daughtrey Mocks Mark Regnerus

The above reporter also notes that Daughtrey said: "What harm comes? It doesn't look like the sky has fallen in other cases." Listen to the first hour of today's hearing at this link and let us know your thoughts.

UPDATE: Freedom To Marry has posted a copy of the Michigan arguments linked above.

Quote Of The Day: Mark Regnerus

"There is good news in Tuesday’s release from the CDC’s National Health Information Survey. No, it’s not the revelation that the gay and lesbian population may be slightly smaller — 1.6 percent — than many scholars have believed; population-based surveys tend to fluctuate. The results of the report make sense to me, and since others have already described them, I will refrain from repeating them at length here. The good news is that the survey’s questions were administered to over 34,000 Americans, randomly sampled, enabling scholars to get quality information about even small communities. And since the NHIS didn’t broadcast its interests or commitments to its survey pool (unlike some studies), we are treated to valid data — on sexuality as well as many other subjects — largely devoid of a form of social-desirability bias wherein respondents’ awareness of their own participation in a study whose topic is dear to them affects their survey answers." - Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus, who is cheered up at the thought of fewer LGBT Americans.

Today In Self-Awareness

Brian Brown Vs Activist Scott Wooledge

NOM chairman Brian Brown rarely responds to anybody on Twitter, but this morning he couldn't resist the above image posted by activist Scott Wooledge, who was reacting to a screed posted yesterday by Brown on NOM's blog. An excerpt:

You may have read the completely misleading headline this week: "Children of Same Sex Couples are Happier and Healthier than Peers, Research Shows" (Washington Post, July 7). The sensationalized headline is yet another example of the mainstream media and their active agenda to push the redefinition of marriage across America. You'll remember the Pew Research study of media coverage of gay marriage where they found that stories sympathetic to redefining marriage outnumbered those sympathetic to preserving marriage by a five to one margin. The media's bias and intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the marriage debate allows them to trumpet a recent Australian study as if it is proven fact, while at the same time being highly critical of the New Family Structures Study and other research that challenges their political posture on the issue. The subject of the headline is a farce of a study based on bad methodology. The survey the Post reports on was done in Australia and purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually are better off than their peers being raised by a mother and father. We know of course that there is no basis for such an outrageous claim, and a closer look at this Australian survey itself confirms our skepticism about it.

On Wednesday, Regnerus himself denounced the Australian study in a lengthy rant published by the Witherspoon Institute. Here's how he begins:

Imagine if evangelical sociologists set out to document how the children of evangelical Christian parents fare in life. Imagine that they begin their effort by recruiting parents of children who attend Sunday School classes at places like Wheaton Bible Church outside Chicago and Saddleback Community Church in Orange County, California—both located in prosperous communities with above-average social capital and support for families, children, and faith. They choose this approach because churchgoing, self-identified evangelicals with children under age eighteen comprise less than 3 percent of the population of American adults (this is true), and the researchers figure it will be easier to recruit participants than to evaluate those who might show up randomly in a population-based sample. They know a random sample is best, but they cite “cost constraints” and “difficult research constraints” in justifying their decision to use a convenience sample. Would the social scientific community consider this study a solid one, employing high-quality sample selection methods and useful both for understanding the experience of Christian households in America and for comparing this group of children with other children? To put it mildly, it’s unlikely. And I would agree with them.

NOM Flogs Debunked Regnerus Study

After discredited researcher Mark Regnerus was eviscerated by a Michigan judge back in March, citations of his debunked study seemed to fade away. But yesterday the study was cited in the Liberty Counsel's amicus brief in one of Florida's marriage cases. And also yesterday there was this from NOM: 

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18." Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children raised in same-sex households are much more likely to have received welfare growing up, have lower educational attainment, report less safety and security in their family of origin, report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from depression, and have been arrested more often. The study also showed that children of lesbian mothers are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance than children raised by their biological parents. Regnerus's study shows clearly that the ideal home for a child is with his or her mother and father.

NOM Forms Secretive New Anti-Gay Supergroup With Archbishop Cordileone

Writing for the HRC's NOM Exposed blog, Jeremy Hooper reports that that NOM has formed a shadowy new anti-gay supergroup in partnership with the Becket Fund, Alliance Defending Freedom, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, and the Witherspoon Institute, which was the primary funding source for the debunked Regnerus study. The new coalition is called the Princeton Group, presumably because its organizational meeting was held last week in Princeton, New Jersey.

As Hooper notes, now we know why Cordileone so vigorously defended his attendance at tomorrow's hate march. And it's particularly interesting that former NOM chair Maggie Gallagher is part of this new group as she has repeatedly said that nationwide marriage equality is a done deal. Perhaps this is part of Brian Brown's plan to set up a network for his predicted "fight for 10, 20 years to undo the damage that the [Supreme] court has done."

Tweet Of The Day - Rachel Held Evans

Evans, a Christian writer, was tweeting from a panel discussion held at the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty forum. Here's the "ironic" history of how the Southern Baptist Convention came to be:

Largely comprised of slaveholders, the gathering at the First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, in May 1845 publicly pled their case. Slavery was biblical. Therefore abolition was sinful, and Baptists of the North were wrong to oppose slavery. Abolitionists of the North were responsible for the Baptist division; southern Baptists had been patient with the agitators, but enough was enough. Pledging allegiance to slavery, they vowed “we will never interfere with what is Caesar’s” (a biblical allusion implying it was their moral and legal responsibility to uphold the legal institution of slavery). And for good measure, the delegates expressed outrage that a northern Baptist missionary had “actually remitted money to the United States to aid in the assisting of slaves to ‘run away from their masters.’” (See Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845.) From this point forward, white Baptist leaders in the South through the end of the Civil War openly and insistently championed and defended white supremacy and black slavery, along the way migrating into a form of Christian nationalism heretofore foreign to the very Christian denomination that had been the most vocal champions, since the seventeenth century, of the separation of church and state.

In 1995 the SBC finally issued a formal apology to African-Americans for having supported slavery and for having supported segregation right through the civil rights era.

RELATED: One of the panelists at the SBC's forum was Mark Regnerus. The event closed with the announcement that in October the SBC will "hold a conference exclusively focusing on homosexuality."

Utah Files Last Minute Brief: Forget Everything We Said About Mark Regnerus

On the eve of oral arguments before the Tenth Circuit Court, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes filed a last minute brief that totally dismisses the state's previous reliance on the work of discredited researcher Mark Regnerus.

Utah files this supplemental letter in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus, which the State cited at footnotes 34 and 42 of its Opening Brief, and which addresses the debate over whether same-sex parenting produces child outcomes that are comparable to man-woman parenting.

First, we wish to emphasize the very limited relevance to this case of the comparison addressed by Professor Regnerus. As the State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents. The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of heterosexual parents.

Second, on the limited issue addressed by the Regnerus study, the State wishes to be clear about what that study (in the State’s view) does and does not establish. The Regnerus study did not examine as its sole focus the outcomes of children raised in same-sex households but, because of sample limitations inherent in the field of study at this point, examined primarily children who acknowledged having a parent who had engaged in a same-sex relationship. Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements.

BAM! In your FACE, Regnerus! (Via Equality Case Files)

Mark Regnerus Has The Michigan Sadz

"I frankly don't understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised. It's as if raising standard methodological issues on this subject is just unwelcome today, unless it's clear that you are friendly to the political goals of the same-sex marriage movement. My study noted numerous suboptimal outcomes experienced by adult children who reported a parental same-sex relationship. Like other studies, it has its limitations. But there is much it can tell us, including about the household instability experienced by such children, and the uncommon frequency of stably-coupled lesbian households with children in the era I was examining. In the end, the judge seemed to focus on what my study could not say rather than what it could. It is frustrating to see him overlook the significant limitations of other studies." - Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus, speaking to LifeSiteNews in an article tweeted out this morning by NOM head Brian Brown. I believe this is the first public statement by Regnerus since his brutal smackdown by that Michigan judge.

MICHIGAN: Judge DESTROYS Mark Regnerus In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

"The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 'study' was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it 'essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society' and which 'was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.'  While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this 'study,' he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general." - Judge Bernard Friedman, in his ruling that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

I want to gay-marry those scare quotes around "study"!

MICHIGAN: Attorney For Plaintiffs Is Grilling Regnerus Over Discredited Study

Regnerus returned to the witness stand about an hour ago. Follow along with reporter Amy Lange's excellent live-tweeting.

University Of Texas Denounces Regnerus

The University of Texas at Austin yesterday published a statement denouncing their own employee, Mark Regnerus, who is presently testifying against same-sex marriage in Michigan.

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

The Michigan trial is scheduled to conclude by Friday. (Tipped by JMG reader David)

MICHIGAN: Regnerus Takes The Stand

A local reporter is live-tweeting from the courthouse. It's not yet clear if the judge has ruled that Regnerus is an "expert witness" and if this is his official testimony. Hit the link and follow along.

(Tipped by JMG reader Christopher)

UPDATE: The reporter just tweeted that Regnerus has been accepted as an expert witness.