Michigan's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Rests on "Expert" Scorned by Peers

Christofascists on parade in Michigan

When Mark Regnerus - who took hundreds of thousands of far right money to conduct a study to come to a pre-ordained anti-gay conclusion - took the stand yesterday as an alleged expert witness for the state of Michigan in defense of that state's same sex marriage ban, it was not pretty.  Either in the courtroom or outside it.  Among other things, Regnerus was force to admit that only two of his subjects were actually raised in same sex couple households and that they had turned out "pretty good."  He was also forced to admit that his religious beliefs form the framework of his opinions.  Equally bad for Regnerus, he was forced to concede that his "study" has been widely condemned - even his own university has distanced itself from him.  First, here are highlights from the Detroit Free Press:

On the day he debuted as the star witness in defense of Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, a University of Texas sociologist was denounced by his employer for peddling junk science.

Under cross-examination Tuesday, Regnerus stoically acknowledged the sting of his peers’ disavowal.

[F]ellow academics have taken issue with everything from the origins of Regnerus’ study (two conservative groups that oppose gay marriage paid the associate professor $785,000 to commission it) to his population sample (which was limited to children born long before same-sex marriages became legal anywhere in the U.S.).

The most damning criticism centers on Regnerus’ admission that he deliberately structured his study to compare children whose parents had a same-sex relationship with those who grew up in opposite-sex households undisturbed by separation or divorce.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case in which U.S. Supreme Court justices struck down a federal law barring recognition, the America Sociological Association charged that Regnerus had stacked the deck by comparing children of intact opposite-sex families with children whose families were distinguished mainly by their instability. In many cases, the association noted, those identified as children of gay or lesbian parents had never even lived with that parent.

Under cross-examination in Friedman’s courtroom Tuesday, Regnerus conceded that more than half of the respondents he classified as children of “gay dads” or “lesbian moms” were the offspring of failed heterosexual marriages, and that only two of the 3,000 respondents he interviewed had been raised by same-sex partners who remained together throughout their childhoods.

Like their peers in stable opposite-sex families, Regnerus conceded, both respondents who grew up in stable same-sex households “looked pretty good” in his study’s measures of adult outcomes.

The case before Friedman is the first in which any state has called Regnerus as an expert witness, and it’s likely to be the last. 

Ouch!  Aljazeera has an even longer and equally scathing account of Regnerus' testimony.  Here are excerpts:

The state of Michigan’s star witness opposing same-sex marriage acknowledged in court on Tuesday that children of gay couples could turn out just as well as any other kids.

What we’ve learned is that it’s possible to grow up in same-sex households and the children will be fine,” said Regnerus, who acknowledged in court he is a religious conservative. “We won’t know if it’s probable until we test it over time.”

Regnerus’ 2012 New Family Structure Study, which he acknowledged in court was funded and organized by conservative think tanks, has been the focus of the Michigan trial. The study examined the lives of 248 adults who said their parents had had a same-sex relationship during their childhood and found, he said, that they fared worse academically and behaviorally than children raised in intact homes with heterosexual parents.

Those findings have been cited by same-sex-marriage foes in several lawsuits around that nation, such as in Utah and Virginia, but have been ravaged by critics who say his conclusions were intentionally deceptive.

Critics said Regnerus’ 248-person study included just two who had been raised from birth to adulthood by gay couples. When asked Monday how those two fared, Regnerus replied, “Pretty good.” 

Part of the state’s and Regnerus’ argument has been that same-sex couples shouldn’t be permitted to marry if their children don’t fare as well as others. Cooper, a veteran gay rights attorney pivotal in cases that led to invalidating Florida’s ban on gay adoption, asked Regnerus if the state should also ban heterosexual marriage among the poor, the less educated and the remarried, given that those factors are statistically known to harm children.  Regnerus said no regarding the poor and less educated, but said he didn’t have an opinion about heterosexual remarriage.

Last week [Judge] Friedman heard from plaintiffs’ experts who said Regnerus’ study was flawed in part because almost all the 248 subjects were the products of divorce and other home-life disruptions known to harm child welfare. His results, they argued, don’t reflect the welfare of children born or adopted into households led by stable gay couples.

I'm sorry, but in my view  Regnerus is a religious extremist quack who structured his study to reach the conclusion his Christofascist financiers wanted.  One can only hope that he has as a result ruined his career and that he will soon find himself looking for work after the University of Texas finds a discrete basis to terminate his employment.  As noted before, perhaps he can get hired by the lunatics at Liberty University.