American Sociological Association Condems Renerus in 10th Circuit Brief

I have written a lot lately on the same sex marriage case pending in Michigan because it is the first time since the Proposition 8 trial at the District Court level that Christofascist witnesses have testified under oath and been subjected to cross examination.  And what we have seen is sadly the norm for the opponents of marriage equality: experts motivated by religious belief rather than the truth, "studies" structure to achieve preordained conclusions, and blatant lies by the supposed experts on the side of bigotry and discrimination.  To date, the rulings striking down same sex marriage bans have rejected the arguments put forth by these sleazy witnesses.  In my view, what really needs to happen is that is that witnesses like Mark Regnerus be hit with perjury charges and attorneys putting forth discredited evidence be hit with sanctions.  But I digress.  In a stunning filing, the  American Sociological Association submitted an amicus brief in the appeal of the Utah ruling that struck down Utah's marriage ban which more or less openly condemned Mark Regnerus and stopped just short of calling his "study" fraudulent.  The Bilerico Project has highlights:

[I]n a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, the American Sociological Association urged the court to strike down marriage discrimination amendments in Utah and Oklahoma and rebuked the discredited research of ASA member Mark Regnerus, whose anti-LGBT New Family Structures Study falsely claimed to show that children do worse with same-sex parents than opposite-sex parents.

The ASA announced the brief in a press release:

"Our latest amicus brief is part of the ASA's ongoing effort to ensure that U.S. courts considering lawsuits to legalize gay marriage understand that social science research shows parents' sexual orientation has no bearing on their children's well-being," said ASA Executive Officer Sally T. Hillsman. "The claim that same-sex parents produce less positive child outcomes than heterosexual parents is simply unsupported."
"As the same-sex marriage debate continues in courtrooms across the country, the ASA will continue to emphasize the clear social science research consensus that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents," Hillsman said. "In addition, we will continue to correct the record when gay marriage opponents misinterpret or misrepresent social science research to support their position."

On Regnerus:

Same-sex marriage opponents, including those defending the gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, often misinterpret or misrepresent social science research, claiming it indicates children with gay parents have worse outcomes than those with heterosexual parents. In particular, same-sex marriage opponents frequently misportray research by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin.
"As I have stated before--and as I will continue to state--the Regnerus papers and other sources gay marriage opponents often rely on provide no basis for their arguments because this research does not directly examine the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents," Hillsman said. "Therefore, these analyses do not undermine the social science research consensus and do not establish a legitimate basis for gay marriage bans."

The ASA took pains to point out that Regnerus's conclusions -- and his subsequent anti-marriage equality advocacy -- quite simply could not be more wrong:

Rather than proving same-sex marriage is a bad thing for children, social science research actually suggests the opposite. "I want to reemphasize that the research supports the conclusion that the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has the potential to improve child well-being insofar as the institution of marriage may provide social and legal support to families and enhance family stability--all of which are key drivers of positive child outcomes," Hillsman said.

Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/asa_spanks_regnerus_again.php#hYoiyH7Qq22eFxmB.99

[I]n a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, the American Sociological Association urged the court to strike down marriage discrimination amendments in Utah and Oklahoma and rebuked the discredited research of ASA member Mark Regnerus, whose anti-LGBT New Family Structures Study falsely claimed to show that children do worse with same-sex parents than opposite-sex parents.

The ASA announced the brief in a press release:

"Our latest amicus brief is part of the ASA's ongoing effort to ensure that U.S. courts considering lawsuits to legalize gay marriage understand that social science research shows parents' sexual orientation has no bearing on their children's well-being," said ASA Executive Officer Sally T. Hillsman. "The claim that same-sex parents produce less positive child outcomes than heterosexual parents is simply unsupported."

"As the same-sex marriage debate continues in courtrooms across the country, the ASA will continue to emphasize the clear social science research consensus that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents," Hillsman said. "In addition, we will continue to correct the record when gay marriage opponents misinterpret or misrepresent social science research to support their position."

On Regnerus:

Same-sex marriage opponents, including those defending the gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, often misinterpret or misrepresent social science research, claiming it indicates children with gay parents have worse outcomes than those with heterosexual parents. In particular, same-sex marriage opponents frequently misportray research by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin.

"As I have stated before--and as I will continue to state--the Regnerus papers and other sources gay marriage opponents often rely on provide no basis for their arguments because this research does not directly examine the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents," Hillsman said. "Therefore, these analyses do not undermine the social science research consensus and do not establish a legitimate basis for gay marriage bans."

The ASA took pains to point out that Regnerus's conclusions -- and his subsequent anti-marriage equality advocacy -- quite simply could not be more wrong:

Rather than proving same-sex marriage is a bad thing for children, social science research actually suggests the opposite. "I want to reemphasize that the research supports the conclusion that the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has the potential to improve child well-being insofar as the institution of marriage may provide social and legal support to families and enhance family stability--all of which are key drivers of positive child outcomes," Hillsman said.

In short, what we see is that no one lies more or more deliberately than the "godly folk" and those out to "protect the sanctity of marriage."  If their lips are moving. it's best to assume that they are lying.

Amicus Brief Amer Sociological Assoc Utah And Oklahoma 10th Circuit

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. 

University of Texas Dishes Mark Regnerus As He Testifies Against Gays

This blog has looked at the discredited "study" conducted by Mark Regnerus with funding from far right anti-gay organizations which sought to prove that children raised in same sex headed households fared worse than those raised in heterosexual couple headed homes.  The problem was, however, that Regnerus never actually studied children raised in homes headed by stable same sex couples.  Instead, he looked at individuals with a supposed gay parent where the parents had divorced and where often the child had never lived with the gay parent post divorce.  But, in true Christofascist fashion, Regnerus never let these fraudulent aspects deficiencies get in the way of reaching his preordained conclusion.  Now, Regnerus is being used as an "expert" on the shortcomings of gay parenting in a case pending in federal court in Michigan (today he will be cross examined which ought to be fun to watch).  Apparently, the University of Texas where Regnerus is on the faculty finds the entire situation distasteful and has issued a denunciation of Regnerus and stressed that Regnerus does not represent the views of the University and/or the faculty.  Here are details from The New Civil Rights Movement:

Mark Regnerus, the man whose name seems to have become synonymous with bad research, was allowed to deliver testimony in federal court today in a case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in Michigan. Many wondered if Judge Bernard Friedman, who barred one “expert” witness from testifying earlier in the day, would allow Regnerus, whose own work has been discredited, to testify. The case, Deboer v. Snyder, involves two nurses, Jayne and April DeBoer-Rowse, who wish to marry and jointly-adopt their three adopted children.

Friedman did, and Regnerus, according to many tweets and reports of journalists in the courtroom, told the judge that there’s just no conclusive evidence that there’s no difference between same-sex and different-sex parents raising children, and that “the most prudent thing to do is wait and evaluate some of these changes over time before making any radical moves around marriage.”

HRC’s Ellen Kahn issued a statement saying that “Mark Regnerus’ testimony today in this trial is, in many ways, a culmination of exactly what the anti-gay funders of his work intended when they conceived the New Family Structures study. Make no mistake about it – Regnerus is not offering valid, scientific data. In fact, his study is a clear outlier among 30 years worth of social science that suggest children thrive equally well in two parent households, regardless of the genders of their parents. He is simply carrying out the harmful rhetoric of organizations that seek to demonize LGBT people and their families.”

Meanwhile, apparently in response to Regnerus begin accepted as a witness and to the testimony he delivered, Regnerus’ own university issued a statement distancing itself from his work.

The University of Texas at Austin and the College of Liberal Arts issued a statement saying “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the university. Like all faculty, he has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. We encourage the community of scholars and society as a whole to evaluate his claims.”

And if that weren’t sufficient, the Chairman of the University of Texas at Austin’s Sociology Department issued a statement today denouncing Regnerus’ work.

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 Sociology Department at The University of Texas at Austin aspires to achieve academic excellence in research, teaching, and public service at the highest level in our discipline. We strive to do so in a context that is based on the highest ethical standards of our discipline and in a context that actively promotes and supports diversity among our faculty and student populations.

As stated many times on this blog, no one lies more frequently and more insidiously than the "godly Christian" crowd.  I hope Regnerus gets torn to shreds on cross examination.  Candidly, one has to wonder when the University will act to dump Regnerus from the faculty given his fraudulent research and force him to move to a discredited institution such as Liberty University here in Virginia.  He is an embarrassment to the University of Texas at this point. 

Discredited Mark Regnerus: Marriage Equality = More Heteros Doing Anal

The foul nastiness of the "godly folk" is sometimes stunning. Yet, these disingenuous modern day Pharisees claim that they do not hold animus towards gays. But their words and actions tell the real story. A case in point? Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus (pictured at left) who claimed that gay couples make inferior parents even though he did not feature any genuine gay headed families in his study. Perhaps it was the right wing funding that he accepted that wanted a predetermined outcome regardless of what a legitimate study might have revealed? Now, Regnerus is back slandering same sex marriage. The Bilerico Project looks at Regnerus' latest batshitery: 

Disgraced researcher-turned-ideologue Mark Regnerus, best known astroturfing a right-wing-funded, "study" of LGBT parenting designed to make it look like same-sex couples make inferior parents, told an audience at the hardcore Catholic fundamentalist Franciscan University of Steubenville that marriage equality will result in straight men cheating on their wives and an epidemic of heterosexual butt sex.

 Regnerus said: 

"If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere -- and not a few husbands -- to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship."

"Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men's sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and in the American imagination." 

Yes, that's right: if same-sex couples are allowed the freedom to marry, straight people will start PUTTING THINGS UP THEIR BUTTS . Quelle horreur!

And from there, it's only a matter of time before the men all drop everything, don assless chaps, leave their straight marriages, and mince right on down to the nearest bathhouse. (You believe me, don't you?) 

Does Regnerus have anything to support these claims other than his anti-gay animus?  Of course not.  Moreover, he perpetuates the myth that sexual orientation is a choice.  It is a wonder that Regnerus is still employed by any reputable university.   Hopefully, that will change soon.

Victoria Cobb - Today's Liar of the Day

Click image to enlarge

I often say that no one lies more than the "godly Christian" folk.  And here in Virginia, few people lie more often or consistently than Victoria Cobb, president of the hate group except for formal designation, The Family Foundation.   In my opinion, Cobb total dishonest makes the nastiest prostitute look like the height of virtue and integrity.  If the woman's lips are moving, she's likely lying.  Particularity about gay Virginians.  In the Richmond Times Dispatch article cited in the prior post, Cobb is quoted as follows:

“The government isn’t in the marriage business to affirm someone’s love life; its interest is to ensure the best interest of children, which social science proves is having both a mom and a dad,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia.

Virtually everything in her statement is false.  First, if marriage was only about  "the best interest of children," the infertile and those heterosexuals couples past child bearing years have no need for marriage.  But Ms. Cobb surely wants marriage for heterosexuals regardless of their age of ability to have children.  Second, other than the Christofascist financed Regnerus "study" that has been debunked - the University of Texas and University of Central Florida are going to great lengths to avoid releasing likely embarrassing documents - all of the legitimate social science finds gay to be equally good parents.  Despite whatever Cobb may say, the single minded agenda of The Family Foundation is to keep gays stigmatized and inferior under the civil laws for the simple reason we do not subscribe to her sick and hate-filled version of Christianity.

Chief Reviewer Trashes Regnerus Anti-Gay Parenting "Study"

Mark Regnerus - author of discredited anti-gay study

In both Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor the Christofascists tried to make much of the far right funded "study" Mark Regnerus which seemingly had a preordained conclusion before Regnerus ever started and which most certainly did not study what it claimed to cover.  In short, the study was a fraudulent piece that was funded by Christofascists for the very purpose of misleading the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts considering gay rights cases.   In short, the "study" is more akin to something Paul Cameron might produce rather than a serious scientific study.  Now a reviewer of the work has slammed Regnerus and his propaganda piece "study."   Here are highlights from The New Civil Rights Movement:

The Regnerus anti-gay parenting “study” by Mark Regnerus (image, above) is “deeply flawed” and as a result, the author himself is “disgraced,” says the study’s top appointed scholarly reviewer.

In a lengthy interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Darren Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University, and a member of the editorial board of Social Science Research — the publisher of the Regnerus “study,” officially the “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS) – once again decimates the Regnerus paper.

“When we talk about Regnerus, I completely dismiss the study,” Sherkat tells the Southern Poverty Law Center:

It’s over. He has been disgraced. All of the prominent people in the field know what he did and why he did it. And most of them know that he knew better. Some of them think that he’s also stupid and an ideologue. I know better. I know that he’s a smart guy and that he did this on purpose, and that it was bad, and that it was substandard.

Darren Sherkat, who “was tapped” by Social Science Research editor James Wright “to conduct an audit of the process of publishing the Regnerus study,” the SPLC writes:

Let’s get down to the details. What’s wrong with the Regnerus paper?Regnerus and other right-wing activists have been fond of claiming that the study is “population-based” or a “national probability study.” As a scientist, I don’t even know what “population-based” means, and the data used in this study are by no means a probability sample. Regnerus’ data are from a large number of people recruited through convenience by a marketing firm — they are not a random, representative sample of the American population. Science requires random samples of the population, and that is not how this marketing firm collected their data.

Several scholars also have pointed to incongruities and outlandish values in the Regnerus study, such as people claiming hundreds of sex partners in the prior week. The online collection of data makes the veracity of responses even more problematic.

Isn’t a key criticism also that the study doesn’t actually address children growing up in households of self-identified LGBT parents?
The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce. The study includes a retrospective question asking if people knew if their mother or father had a “romantic” relationship with someone of the same sex when the respondent was under age 18. This measure is problematic on many levels.

Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.

It's troubling that to date Regnerus has not been disciplined by the university that employs him and has not lost any memberships in professional organizations.  Is this yet another example of unfounded deference to conservative religious beliefs?   No one lies as often and as viciously than the "godly folks."

P.S. My fellow blogger Jeremy Hooper at Good As You notes:

This weekend, Mark Regnerus will appear at the “It Takes A Family” conference, a project of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, where he will lecture alongside intensely anti-gay figures like Robert Gagnon. Just in case you needed more grist for the agenda-driven mill.