Utah - State's Last Minute Brief Says Ignore Everything We Said About Mark Regnerus

As previous posts have noted, both professional associations and the federal judge in the Michigan marriage ruling have been brutal in their evisceration of Mark Regnerus and his right wing hate group funded supposed study on gay parenting.  Even the Sociology Department at the University of Texas has sought to distance itself from Regnerus and his "study."  Now, the State of Utah has filed a supplemental brief in the same sex marriage case pending before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that in essence says "ignore everything we said relying on Mark Regnerus and his work."  As noted before, I cannot help but wonder when the University of Texas will find some basis to fire Regnerus.  But back to the new brief filed by the State of Utah.  Here are highlights via Joe My God:

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.

Ouch!!  The bottom line is that Regnerus happily sold his soul to the Witherspoon Institute and created a "study" that would confirm that organization's predetermined anti-gay conclusion.  Regnerus' self-prostitution has now come full circle to bite him in the ass and perhaps usher in the end of his career at any legitimate university.  I find it extremely difficult to have any sympathy for Regnerus who showed less integrity than the tawdriest whore, in my opinion

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. 

Christofascists'" Gays Bad-for-Children" Argument to Face Court Scrutiny

One of the recurring themes of the anti-gay Christofascists is that gay parenting is bad for children and that, therefore, gays should not be allowed to marry.  This specious argument was made in briefs recently in Bostic v. Rainey and other recent same sex marriage rulings all decided at the Summary Judgment point.  But in none of these cases were the faux experts utilized by the anti-gay forces required to testify under oath in open court.  Indeed, the last time that such testimony occurred was in Hollingsworth v. Perry where the Christofascist witnesses either failed to show or were demolished on cross examination.  Now, a case in Michigan will pit the paid faux experts of the far right against virtually every legitimate medical and mental health association in America.  One can only hope that the match up is a catastrophe for the haters which may kill this disingenuous defense of bigotry once and for all.  The New York Times looks at the coming court case and the manner in which extremist groups have funded the faux research.  Here are highlights:

As they reel from a succession of defeats in courtrooms and legislatures, opponents of same-sex marriage have a new chance this week to play one of their most emotional and, they hope, potent cards: the claim that having parents of the same sex is bad for children.

In a federal court in Detroit starting Tuesday, in the first trial of its kind in years, the social science research on family structure and child progress will be openly debated, with expert testimony and cross-examination, offering an unusual public dissection of the methods of sociology and the intersection of science and politics.

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

“The overwhelming evidence so far is that there’s not much difference between children raised by heterosexual or same-sex parents,” Andrew J. Cherlin, a prominent sociologist of family issues at Johns Hopkins University who is not involved in the case, said in an interview.

The last time these issues were debated in a federal court, in California nearly four years ago, social science opponents of same-sex marriage underwent withering challenges in pretrial depositions and did not even appear in court.   As he struck down Proposition 8, the California amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court in San Francisco said he had heard “no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society.”

This time, four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.  The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. 

The [Witherspoon Institute] institute gave Dr. Regnerus $695,000; the Bradley Foundation, a grant-making organization that supports conservative causes, gave him $90,000, according to his résumé.

[P]professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.” . . . .  “Are we going to hold same-sex parents to a different standard than heterosexuals?” she asked.