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

‘Super Creepy’: Vance and Masters’ Belief Politicians Have to Have Kids Called ‘Repugnant’

Published

on

Resurfaced video from 2021 shows Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, U.S. Senator JD Vance (R-OH) sharing his belief that children should be given the “right” to vote – but those rights should go to their parents, so parents have more votes than non-parents. In remarks more widely distributed, Vance also said that the country is run by the Democratic Party, which he called “a bunch of childless cat ladies.”

Republican congressional candidate Blake Masters weighed in, sharing his belief that having children should be a pre-requisite for being elected as a political leader.

The pushback from critics has been palpable.

“Let’s give votes to all children in this country. But let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country, as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids,” Vance declared in 2021 (video below) while delivering a speech to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a right-wing college organization which is now on the Project 2025 Advisory Board. “Let’s face the consequences and the reality if you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.”

READ MORE: US Strong Economic Growth ‘Continues to Defy Expectations,’ Expert Credits Biden Policies

“Doesn’t this mean that non-parents don’t have as much of a voice as parents? Doesn’t this mean that parents get a bigger say in how our democracy functions?” Vance asked. “Yes. Absolutely.”

Vance’s remarks on parents getting more votes was overshadowed by his now-infamous comment that Democrats are “a bunch of childless cat ladies.”

“We’re effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via, via our corporate oligarchs by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made,” Vance told Tucker Carlson, the now-former Fox News host.

READ MORE: Eight Years Ago JD Vance Wondered How Many Americans Donald Trump Had ‘Sexually Assaulted’

“And so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. And it’s just a basic fact… Kamala Harris. Pete Buttigieg. AOC. The entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”

Vance is already seeing great pushback for his remarks.

“JD Vance is apparently unaware that George Washington had no children,” wrote Billy Binion, a reporter for the libertarian magazine Reason. “Was the founder of this country just a ~childless cat lady~ with no stake in America? This stuff is embarrassing and incoherent, and people in the Republican Party should be willing to say so.”

Astonishing parallels below between slave owners who counted 3/5 of their slaves in the census to inflate their political power and @JDVance promoting extra voting power for parents. As the father of 8, I find his views repugnant,” wrote professor of law and journalism David Cay Johnston.

Despite the pushback, Vance’s remarks and beliefs were propped up Wednesday night by Republican candidate Blake Masters, who wrote: “Political leaders should have children. Certainly they should at least be married. If you aren’t running or can’t run a household of your own, how can you relate to a constituency of families, or govern wisely with respect to future generations? Skin in the game matters.”

Now Masters is getting pushback as well.

“According to @bgmasters, echoing the sentiment of @JDVance and the Trump campaign, if you’ve miscarried, you have no skin in the game. If you’re Lindsey Graham or Tim Scott, you’re not eligible to govern. If you’re a widow or widower, you can’t run a household,” wrote Travis Akers, a retired Naval Intelligence Officer, veterans’ advocate, and activist.

Political commentator and former Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor responded with a personal story:

“My wife and I had multiple, soul-crushing miscarriages, and one still born daughter before we were able to have children. Millions of parents are desperate to have kids but simply can’t. Treating people without children like they are lesser human beings is unbelievably cruel.”

Marcy Wheeler, a noted civil rights and national security journalist also shared her personal story, writing: “A year after marrying my beloved spouse of 20+ years, I started 6 years of cancer treatment, which largely closed window we would have had children. Sh*thole men who can’t understand those kinds of questions simply can’t relate to choices families face everyday.”

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) responded by saying, “This is all so super creepy and disturbing.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Anti-Harris Propaganda Begins, Expert Cites Kellyanne Conway as Example

Continue Reading

News

US Strong Economic Growth ‘Continues to Defy Expectations,’ Expert Credits Biden Policies

Published

on

America’s economy grew at a “robust” but “not too hot” rate over the last quarter, leading experts to declare it “continues to defy expectations,” as inflation subsides. Economists point to sustained levels of purchasing by American consumers, with one expert crediting President Joe Biden’s economic policies as achieving better results than most countries around the world have seen.

“The economy picked up sharply in the second quarter as a rise in consumer and business spending offset a drop in housing construction and a widening trade gap,” USA Today reports. “The nation’s gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S., expanded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 2.8% in the April-to-June period, the Commerce Department said Thursday.”

“Forecasters surveyed by Bloomberg had projected a 1.9% increase.”

READ MORE: Trump Said Some Disabled People – Including His Young Relative – Should Just ‘Die’: Nephew

Michael Linden, a Senior Policy Fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth explains: “At this point after the Great Recession [a global recession that technically ended in 2009], the economy was about 6% smaller than what had been expected. That’s millions of people out of work. That’s hundreds of billions of dollars not in pockets. It matters a lot that we are above projections!”

He adds, “the overall size of the US economy is BIGGER today than what was expected even before the pandemic struck.”

Fitch Ratings’ head of economic research Olu Sonola told ABC News, “This is a perfect report for the Fed,” referring to the Federal Reserve, which is widely expected to cut interest rates in September. “Growth during the first half of the year is not too hot, inflation continues to cool and the elusive soft landing scenario looks within reach.”

ABC News also notes that “inflation has slowed sharply, to 3% from 9.1% in 2022,” and explains: “The Fed’s rate hikes — 11 of them in 2022 and 2023 — were a response to the flare-up in inflation that began in the spring of 2021 as the economy rebounded with unexpected speed from the COVID-19 recession, causing severe supply shortages. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 made things worse by inflating prices for the energy and grains the world depends on. Prices spiked across the country and the world.”

Former National Economic Council Deputy Director Bharat Ramamurti praised the Biden-Harris administration’s polices for returning economic results that have been among the best around the world.

READ MORE: Under Consideration for VP, Buttigieg Refuses to Speculate on Being Harris’ Running Mate

“The Biden-Harris economy continues to defy expectations and lap its global competitors. And it reflects decisions the Admin[istration] made: to prioritize a quick return to a strong job market and to promote private investment in clean energy and manufacturing,” he wrote.

Ramamurti, who served as Democratic U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s senior counsel for banking and economic policy, and as her 2020 presidential campaign’s economic policy director, also issued a strong warning:

“The biggest threat to our sustained progress is the Trump economic agenda, which would reignite inflation and stifle growth — all in the service of delivering massive tax cuts to the rich and creating a de facto national sales tax via 10% across-the-board tariffs.”

Washington Post columnist and editorial board member Heather Long called it “a great GDP report,” and concluded: “The economy keeps powering on.”

See the charts above or at this link.

READ MORE: Eight Years Ago JD Vance Wondered How Many Americans Donald Trump Had ‘Sexually Assaulted’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘A Narrative You Love’: White House Slams Doocy’s ‘Cover Up’ Claim

Published

on

Three days after President Joe Biden heeded the call of his Party’s leaders and ended his re-election campaign, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre blasted Fox News’s Peter Doocy for alleging a long-term “cover-up” of the President’s health had taken place.

President Biden, who returned to the White House Tuesday after a week-long slog with COVID, will address the nation Wednesday night in a rare Oval Office primetime speech, to explain his historic and nearly unprecedented decision to exit the race and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris.

“It would seem that the White House knew that President was slipping. And it was hidden from the American people. So who ordered White House officials to cover up a declining president?” asked Doocy, who has been a thorn in the administration’s side for much of Biden’s term.

“I know that that is a narrative that you love,” Jean-Pierre reminded him.

“He did a press conference at NATO, ‘I’m in it,’ ” Doocy charged. ‘There’s all these things to finish,’ and then ten days later, ‘I’m dropping out.’ ”

READ MORE: Trump Said Some Disabled People – Including His Young Relative – Should Just ‘Die’: Nephew

“First of all, there’s been no cover up,” Jean-Pierre declared. “I want to be very clear about that. I know that is the narrative that you all want. It is not.”

“I’m going to say this again, and, you’re going to hear it directly from the President – I hope you listen tonight. I think it’s going to be incredibly powerful and important, the Oval Office, as you know, when they make speeches from the Oval Office it’s because they want to directly make sure that the American people hear it from them. Obviously going to be done in primetime. I would listen to the President.”

“And then what I will say is that it is not easy,” she continued, “making a decision that the President made on Sunday, it is just not. It is not . And as all you have you reported, it is historic. It is unusual. This is not the norm, and making a decision like that for someone who has been in public service for 54 years. U.S. Senator for 36, Vice President to President Obama for eight, and now a first term as president himself. These are not easy decisions to make. They’re just not. And so the fact that he was able to make that decision in a selfless way. That’s admirable.”

Jean-Pierre’s assertion the mainstream media wants to promote a “cover-up” narrative is substantiated by MSNBC’s Elise Jordan, who in video that aired Wednesday asked a focus group, “Who do you blame for President Biden’s being in office in this condition?”  and then, “Who deserves the blame?”

READ MORE: Under Consideration for VP, Buttigieg Refuses to Speculate on Being Harris’ Running Mate

Professor and media critic Jeff Jarvis responded, “Hang that in the museum of dead journalism, in the collection of leading questions.”

Jarvis added Jordan then –  referring to Vice President Kamala Harris – said: “If she’s willing to hide that kind of information…. Is is it a power grab or…?”

Watch the video of Doocy and Jean-Pierre below or at this link.

READ MORE: Buttigieg Praises Harris’s Focus on ‘People’s Families’ – Slams Vance’s ‘Childless’ Attack

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.