Connect with us

Anti-Gay Parenting Study May Support Gay Marriage, Some On The Right Say

Published

on

Mark Regnerus, the author of a flawed parenting paper that attempts to claim that gay and lesbian parents not only aren’t as good as straight parents, but outright claims that gay and lesbian parents make bad parents, has drawn the criticism of not only progressives, but conservatives as well. But some conservatives — along with many liberals or progressives — find the Regnerus “study” actually proves the need for marriage to be extended to same-sex couples.

READ: NOM Founder And Mormon Church Tied To First Report Of New Anti-Gay Parenting Paper

The Regnerus study, bankrolled by private conservative think tanks to the tune of almost $800,000, sets out to show the differences between the adult children of straight, married, heterosexual couples, and those of their peers raised by unmarried, same-sex (yes, homosexual) couples. But what it actually does is compare adult children of married heterosexual couples to adult children who think at some point in their childhood one of their parents had some sort of a same-sex relationship. (Frankly, since Regnerus offered any of his 3000 or so subjects no definitions of what a same-sex relationship is, a blow job in the back of a VW Microbus could have qualified.)

And what it really finds is that (1) children who grew up over the past 40 years in broken homes have a harder time than children who grew up in intact homes, and therefore, (2) children need stability.

To be clear, as LiveScience writer Stephanie Pappas, writing at the Huffington Post notes:

Only two of the 1.7 percent of respondents who reported a parental same-sex relationship reported living with that couple as parents for their entire childhood, meaning that the study has little to say about gay couples who deliberately chose to parent children through donor insemination, surrogacy or other means.

Fortunately, of course, lovers of science, regardless of political perspective, have attacked the Regnerus study for its flawed methodology and brazen attempt to throw anti-gay ideology into the scientific community.

Here’s a sampling of conservatives — often cited by the anti-gay radical right — who say the Mark Regnerus paper is or may be evidence for the need for same-sex marriage. One of them is the paper’s author, Mark Regnerus, himself.

ROSS DOUTHAT: NEW YORK TIMES

Because it focuses on adult outcomes, Regnerus’s study is necessarily a look backward. No matter where they lived or how they were treated by their peers, many of his subjects came of age when homosexuality was still marginalized and despised and gay marriage barely on the radar screen. The majority were born to male-female couples in which one partner later came out as gay (adding an extra layer of complexity and heartbreak), rather than being planned via adoption, sperm donation or in vitro fertilization. Almost none were raised in a single same-sex household for their entire childhood. Today the models of gay parenting have presumably shifted, the stability of gay households has presumably increased, and the outcomes for children may be shifting as well.

For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, then, any past disadvantages associated with being raised in same-sex households could easily be cited as evidence for why gay couples need full marriage rights now – the better to guarantee their children, existing or potential, the stability and continuity the institution provides.

 

CHARLES C. W. COOKE: NATIONAL REVIEW

Moreover, given that the study is a snapshot of a time period that predated legalization of gay marriage (in some states), one might speculate that social stigma played a role in Regnerus’s data, and that such stigma will have a smaller effect in future surveys. Indeed, one should concede that people could legitimately employ Regnerus’s study to justify gay marriage on the grounds that societal disapproval of unmarried gay parents leads to the very instability that causes their children to experience negative outcomes: Marriage between gay partners will enhance the family’s stability and therefore be good for the children. I consider this to be a step too far — the high rate of divorce among gays does not suggest that same-sex households will soon be a model of stability — but it is worth consideration.

 

WILLIAM SALETAN: SLATE

What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn’t meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus’ sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago. No more sham heterosexual marriages. No more post-parenthood self-discoveries. No more deceptions. No more affairs. And no more polarization between homosexuality and marriage. Gay parents owe their kids the same stability as straight parents. That means less talk about marriage as a right, and more about marriage as an expectation.

The study’s main takeaway, according to Regnerus, is that kids of gay parents have turned out differently from kids of straight parents, and not in a good way. I’m sure that conclusion will please the study’s conservative sponsors. But the methodology and findings, coupled with previous research, point to deeper differences that transcend orientation. Kids do better when they have two committed parents, a biological connection, and a stable home. If that’s good advice for straights, it’s good advice for gays, too.

 

MARK REGNERUS: SLATE

This study arrives in the middle of a season that’s already exhibited plenty of high drama over same-sex marriage, whether it’s DOMA, the president’s evolving perspective, Prop 8 pinball, or finished and future state ballot initiatives. The political take-home message of the NFSS study is unclear, however. On the one hand, the instability detected in the NFSS could translate into a call for extending the relative security afforded by marriage to gay and lesbian couples. On the other hand, it may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form while Americans continue to flee the stable, two-parent biological married model, the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.

 

MARK REGNERUS: PATHEOS

Q: Some might say this study reveals evidence that gay and lesbian parents would benefit from access to the relative security of marriage. What are your thoughts on that?

A: It’s possible. How gay marriages would function for children is an empirical question, but it’s only answerable in the future, after ample numbers of cases have accrued, after considerable time has expired, and when the respondents are old enough to speak and reflect about it, as the respondents in my study have.

Related:

Keith Ablow Worried Bullies Will Attack Him For Supporting Anti-Gay ‘Study’

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Pam Bondi Quietly Disbands DOJ Task Force Targeting Russian Oligarchs

Published

on

Three years ago, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland created a task force dedicated to enforcing U.S. sanctions imposed on Russian oligarchs in response to Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

“To those bolstering the Russian regime through corruption and sanctions evasion: we will deprive you of safe haven and hold you accountable,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said as the new task force was announced. “Oligarchs be warned: we will use every tool to freeze and seize your criminal proceeds.”

“We will leave no stone unturned,” Attorney General Garland declared, “in our efforts to investigate, arrest, and prosecute those whose criminal acts enable the Russian government to continue this unjust war. Let me be clear: if you violate our laws, we will hold you accountable.”

Just one day into her new job, President Donald Trump’s newly-sworn-in U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, disbanded that group, known officially as Task Force KleptoCapture. NBC News’ Ken Dilanian and Tom Winter, among others, reported the development.

READ MORE: ‘Last Thing I Want Is That Guy’: Dem Warns Against Musk ‘Trying to Control the Airspace’

In announcing the March 2022 formation of Task Force KleptoCapture, Garland explained that it would be “dedicated to enforcing the sweeping sanctions, export restrictions, and economic countermeasures that the United States has imposed, along with allies and partners, in response to Russia’s unprovoked military invasion of Ukraine.”

“Task Force KleptoCapture will ensure the full effect of these actions, which have been designed to isolate Russia from global markets and impose serious costs for this unjustified act of war, by targeting the crimes of Russian officials, government-aligned elites, and those who aid or conceal their unlawful conduct.”

Vanity Fair’s Bradley Hope, a former Wall Street Journal correspondent, reported that Attorney General Bondi, via email, announced the closure of Task Force KleptoCapture on Wednesday at 7:30 PM, along with the Kleptocracy Initiative.

“The units recovered billions in stolen assets since 2010,” Hope wrote.

“But here’s the real story,” he added. “Sources say a key objective is gaining control of a multi-billion dollar forfeiture fund – money seized from corrupt officials that was meant to be returned to victim countries.”

“Where’s that money headed? Bondi’s memo cryptically mentions ‘other law enforcement purposes.’ Multiple sources say this means funding new detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay and Texas,” Hope reported.

At Project Brazen, Hope’s website, he offers much more detail.

Hope also points to a Bloomberg Law report revealing Bondi “is scaling back enforcement of laws governing foreign lobbying transparency and bribes of foreign officials.”

READ MORE: Trump Vows to Eradicate ‘Anti-Christian Bias,’ Says ‘We Have to Bring Religion Back’

Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act will be narrower under the Trump administration, which “signals a dramatic retreat from two growth areas of white collar enforcement over the past ten to 15 years.”

“For instance,” Bloomberg noted, “the foreign lobbying policy comes after the department surged FARA enforcement starting under Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading to prosecutions of prominent political figures in both parties. Bondi became familiar with the law’s requirements when she registered in recent years as a foreign agent while lobbying for the government of Qatar.”

Bloomberg’s report also notes that the KleptoCapture Task Force, “has led efforts to confiscate yachts, planes and real estate from rich Russians sanctioned over the war in Ukraine. The US has sent Russian assets confiscated as a result of the task force’s work to the benefit of Ukraine.”

In reporting that Bondi disbanded Task Force KleptoCapture, The Guardian noted that “Trump has spoken about improving relations with Moscow. He has previously vowed to end the war in Ukraine, though he has not released a detailed plan.”

Attorney Stephen Frank, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, told The Guardian, “It is a radical move away from traditional FCPA cases and toward a narrow subset of drug and violent crime-related cases that have never been the focus of FCPA enforcement.”

Meanwhile, cybersecurity reporter Eric Geller reported that Bondi also “used her first day on the job to disband the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which has been a key part of government efforts to stop adversaries from meddling in U.S. democracy.”

READ MORE: ‘Democracy Weeks Away From Disintegrating’: Democratic Senator Issues Warning — and a Plan

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Last Thing I Want Is That Guy’: Dem Warns Against Musk ‘Trying to Control the Airspace’

Published

on

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, issued sharp criticism of President Donald Trump’s Director of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Elon Musk, and cautioned him against “trying to control the airspace.” The Washington Democrat said she would ask the U.S. Department of Transportation to prevent Musk from participating in efforts to reform the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while also citing concerns over an alleged conflict of interest.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday (video below), Senator Cantwell announced she was sending a letter expressing her concerns to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy.

“It’s a clear conflict of interest, and Secretary Duffy should make sure that Mr. Musk is not part of the FAA air transportation system,” said Cantwell, who also serves as an ex-officio member of the Subcommittee on Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation, and the Subcommittee on Space and Science.

“He has been fined for violations. He worked hard to try to get Mr. Whitaker, somebody who was approved 98 – 0, I think, out of the system, and it is a clear conflict of interest,” she noted. Senator Cantwell was referring to Michael Whitaker, the now-former head of the FAA who “clashed with Trump ally Elon Musk by proposing that his company SpaceX be fined over safety issues,” according to The Independent. The Guardian reported Whitaker had been “forced out” after Musk “called for him to quit.”

READ MORE: Trump Vows to Eradicate ‘Anti-Christian Bias,’ Says ‘We Have to Bring Religion Back’

Reuters reported Secretary Duffy “said he spoke to Musk on Tuesday about airspace reform issues and to Musk’s government reform team.”

“‘They are going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system,’ Duffy said on X.”

When she was asked, “how bad of an idea is it to have DOGE involved in FAA,” when their goal is to “cut cut cut and they’re short on controllers?” Cantwell pointed to Congress’s efforts to increase the number of air traffic controllers.

“Congress has spoken, we want 3,000 more air traffic controllers. If President Trump and the administration want to talk to Congress about ways to get even more air traffic controllers because they’ve been working six days a week, we will certainly take that conversation, and if they want to help implement NextGen faster, we will take that, and if he wants to help implement standards for both the military and other commercial airplanes to have this, what is called ADS-B in and out, which gives you more information about who’s in your airspace, we gladly welcome that, too,” Cantwell explained.

On Thursday, Trump “vowed his administration will create a ‘great computerized system’ for air traffic control that, had it been in place, could have prevented the recent midair crash involving a passenger jet and a helicopter that killed 67 people,” Politico reported. “Trump is likely referring to the NextGen program, the FAA’s multiyear effort to move from radar to a satellite-based air traffic control system that has been underway for years. However, it has beset by cost overruns and delays and is expected to be less transformational than originally promised.”

Senator Cantwell drew a line at Musk, she said, “trying to control the airspace.”

READ MORE: ‘Democracy Weeks Away From Disintegrating’: Democratic Senator Issues Warning — and a Plan

“What we don’t welcome is a man who’s regulated by this sector and who has had fines for violation of safety, which is launch issues related to protecting the flying public, at a time when you need the FAA to call the shots and say, ‘don’t launch now because there could be a conflict in the airspace,’ the last thing I want is that guy trying to control the airspace.”

Professor William J. McGee, a Senior Fellow for Aviation and Travel at the American Economic Liberties Project and an FAA-licensed dispatcher, responded: “Sen. Cantwell is right. There’s no question this is a clear conflict of interest.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Demagoguery’: Comer and Republicans Melt Down When Democrat Tries to Subpoena Musk

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Trump Vows to Eradicate ‘Anti-Christian Bias,’ Says ‘We Have to Bring Religion Back’

Published

on

In a “meandering” speech filled with off-script jokes, recycled campaign lines, and religious-themed policy announcements, President Donald Trump addressed religious and political leaders at the controversial National Prayer Breakfast at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. He pledged to “protect Christians” and announced plans to direct the U.S. Department of Justice to create a task force to “eradicate” what he called “anti-Christian bias.”

“Well, we wanna bring religion back stronger, bigger, better than ever before. It’s very important,” the President declared. “We have to have religion and it suffered greatly over the last few years, but it’s coming back.”

“We have to bring religion back. We have to bring it back much stronger. It’s one of the biggest problems that we’ve had over the last fairly long period of time. We have to bring it back.”

He promised to “protect Christians” in schools, the military, in government, workplaces, hospitals, public squares, and said, “I will always protect religious liberty,” as he continued unveiling religious policy promises.

READ MORE: ‘Democracy Weeks Away From Disintegrating’: Democratic Senator Issues Warning — and a Plan

“And that is why today,” he declared, “I’m announcing that I will be creating a brand new presidential commission on religious liberty. It’s gonna be a very big deal, which will work tirelessly to uphold this most fundamental right. Unfortunately, in recent years, we’ve seen this sacred liberty threatened like never before in American history. There’s nothing happened like the last four years what’s happened with so many things have gone bad, but religion, what they’ve done, and the persecution that they’ve executed, have been just horrible.”

“The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government, including at the DOJ, which was absolutely terrible. The IRS, the FBI, terrible, and other agencies,” Trump alleged. “In addition, the task force will work to fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society and to move heaven and earth to defend the rights of Christians and religious believers, nationwide. We’ve never had that before, but this is a very powerful document I’m signing, you’ve got it, you get it now.”

Trump praised himself for “showing up to the Prayer Breakfast,” falsely implying that his predecessors had not. He also hinted at the possibility of running for a third term—an idea some Republicans are backing with congressional legislation—and firmly asserted that the President of the United States should be a person of faith.

READ MORE: ‘Demagoguery’: Comer and Republicans Melt Down When Democrat Tries to Subpoena Musk

“We have a mandate and lets say the most consequential election in 129 years, and that’s good because I’m a believer, like you’re a believer, and we want to have a believer in this position,” Trump said.

“I really believe you can’t be happy without religion, without that belief,” he added. “Let’s bring religion back. Let’s bring God back into our lives.”

The President mentioned the tragic loss of 67 lives in a recent mid-air crash near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, saying their time on earth was over but they are now with God. He swiftly transitioned to talk about the assassination attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania, declaring, “It was God that saved me,” and claiming his son Don’s embrace of religion had increased as a result.

Before falsely claiming, as he has countless times before, that his election allowed Americans to once again say, “Merry Christmas,” Trump said that “from the very beginning of our republic, America has always been a nation founded by people of faith and strengthened by the power of prayer and united by four simple, but very beautiful words: ‘in God we trust.’ And you all know there was a movement to get that out.”

“In God We Trust,” was officially adopted as the motto of the United States in 1956.

He also told attendees, “we get rid of woke over the last two weeks.”

The American Humanist Foundation on Thursday declared that the “National Prayer Breakfast and its ties to the Fellowship Foundation, an extreme Christian Nationalist organization, are a sham. Holding a government-run, taxpayer-funded Christian ceremony in the U.S. Capitol disrespects the secular ideals that founded this country.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Democrats Vow to Hold the Floor ‘All Night’ to Block Trump ‘Project 2025’ Nominee

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.