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’

Related Topics:
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

Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

Stephen Miller’s latest anti-immigrant rant is drawing attention, including from a well-known Catholic Jesuit priest, who appeared to liken the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s remarks to those made by Hitler’s notorious Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in 1941.

Miller, one of the most powerful members of the Trump administration, is seen as the principal architect of the President’s anti-immigration and deportation policies.

“U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles. Masked immigration officers at courthouses and popular restaurants. Bans on travelers from more than a dozen countries,” Reuters reported on Friday. “For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, things were going according to plan.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

Denouncing the city government of Los Angeles as “waging a campaign of insurrection against the federal government,” Miller on Friday painted a scenario without undocumented immigrants in remarks made to Fox News.

“Let’s be very clear,” he said. “What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?”

“Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problem. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who had special needs would get all the attention that they needed.”

“There would be no violent transnational gangs. There would be no cartels. There would be no Mexican Mafia. There would be no Sureños. There would be no MS-13 There would be no TdA.”

“You would be living in a city that would be safe, that would be clean, there would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug dens,” he alleged. “That could be the future Los Angeles could have, but the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and their criminal aliens.”

READ MORE: Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda

Some of Miller’s claims are incorrect. For example, public schools often receive state funding in part based on the number of students and their attendance rate. Fewer students in classrooms means fewer dollars. And federal funding is tied to the number of low-income students and students with disabilities.

Miller’s claims about fentanyl and “drug dens” also don’t hold up. Most fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens, according to the Cato Institute.

Father James Martin, editor-at-large for America Magazine, which is published by the Jesuits, responded to Miller’s remarks by posting a quote from Goebbels:

“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?”

It’s not the first time Father Martin has responded to Miller’s anti-immigrant rants with a quote.

In April, he quoted the Bible:

“‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Matthew 25).”

See Martin’s post and video of Miller’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda

Published

7 hours ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

A record-high majority—nearly eight in ten Americans—now view immigration positively, with similarly strong support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. The Gallup poll also found that most Americans favor maintaining or increasing current immigration levels.

Meanwhile, large segments of the public oppose expanding the number of immigration enforcement agents—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Overall, just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, while 65% disapprove.

Gallup’s report deals a major blow to the very core of President Donald Trump’s agenda, and his “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that dramatically increases spending on immigration enforcement, including detention camps, deportations, and removal, even to third-party countries.

RELATED: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

“Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today,” Gallup reported on Friday. “At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”

“These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups,” the top-rated pollster also reported.

Now, just 38% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, in vast contrast to the stated Trump agenda. That’s down from 47% last year.

In what could be seen as a warning to the GOP, Gallup notes that “the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%.”

Just this week, several top Trump administration officials have continued to promote his anti-immigrant policies.

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this week told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them.

“There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation,” Secretary Rollins said.

Republican Senators have been promoting the Trump anti-immigrant agenda as well. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) called Democrats who oppose the often warrantless raids and tactics used by the DHS’s frequently masked ICE agents, “ignorant pawns of a subversive anarchist agenda.”

President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s budget, which Trump signed into law last weekend, is tremendously unpopular, including his exponential expansion of immigration enforcement budgets, as well as aspects that gut vital social safety net programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Critics praised Gallup’s findings.

“Nativism had its 6 months and now it’s clear that it’s not the answer,” wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier.

NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, pointing to the Gallup statistics, called it “backlash politics.”

“Turns out, mass kidnappings and deportations are deeply unpopular when put into practice,” observed New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher.

See the social media post above or at this link.

READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

Published

9 hours ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals—and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”

“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them.”

“They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”

“A uniformed border police officer walks up to them, for instance, at a Home Depot. And they got all these … facts, plus the person walks away or runs away,” Homan said, offering one scenario. “Agents are trained. What they need to detain somebody temporarily and question them.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

“It’s not probable cause,” he insisted. “It’s reasonable suspicion.”

“We’re trained on that. Every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again,” Homan said.

Legal experts blasted Homan’s remarks.

Professor of Law, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance summed up Homan’s remarks: “Racial profiling.”

“This is patently false,” declared U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), also an attorney, “DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop.”

Attorney and California Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener charged, “This is literally the definition of a white nationalist police state.”

U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) warned, “Trump’s thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it.”

READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief

Attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold explained, “Walking up to people (without threatening) is legal. But ‘detaining’ people without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal or quasi-criminal activity is illegal. Racial profiling is not cause for the required reasonable suspicion. ‘Let me see your papers’ is un-American.”

U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), who, in a highly-publicized incident was forcibly removed and handcuffed by federal agents at a DHS press conference, wrote: “And there you have it. Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.”

“They’re saying the quiet part out loud now,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “Don’t get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they’ll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough.”

“THEY ARE ADMITTING IT,” wrote David J. Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies and an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. “Homan is admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States,” he alleged.

Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, wrote: “Trump’s Border Czar and Project 2025 contributor says ICE can detain anyone based on ‘suspicion’ and physical ‘appearance.’ That’s not immigration policy, it’s fascism.”

Watch the video below or at this link:

READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.