Connect with us

Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Published

on

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

 

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM’s Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin’s Mark Regnerus.

Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents.

Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes.

The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous — to children — than heterosexual parents — “must go” as a result of his study.  The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark’s companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile — titled “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes” — is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting.

One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in “Social Science Research” — whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships — the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper.  That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year.

In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples.

Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans’ DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks’s paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks’s study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case.

One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM’s Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.

That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers’ money to argue in court that gay Americans’ rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country.

Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters’ minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus’s funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren’t Alright  and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate.  That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM’s lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR’s site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of “sociologists” voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus’s anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George’s and Maggie Gallagher’s long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR’s website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households.

This reporter’s request from Loren Marks’s Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks’s study has yet to receive a definitive response.

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.

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

Red State Democrats Sound 2026 Warning Over ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Published

on

Democratic candidates running in red states and hoping to flip districts are warning against “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the president’s and his supporters’ name for reflexive anti-Trump sentiment.

“Arguing about Donald Trump, somebody people voted for probably three times, isn’t going to be very conducive to getting things accomplished or reaching some common ground,” Kansas farmer and veterinarian Don Coover, challenging an incumbent GOP congressman in a deep-red district, told Bloomberg Government. Coover “said his party has to dial back the national rhetoric if it wants to compete in Trump-friendly places.”

Andrew Sneed, who is challenging a GOP incumbent congressman in a deep red Alabama district, told Bloomberg, “If we make this election about President Trump in my district and in districts like this around the country, we’re going to lose.”

Democrats hope to retake the House majority, and have targeted 25 GOP-held seats.

U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) urged Democrats to focus on the issues, such as affordability, and not on Donald Trump.

“It’s less about him than the fact that he’s not paying attention to the issue of affordability,” Suozzi told Bloomberg. “It’s not about Trump. It’s not about Trump derangement syndrome, and it’s not about his sometimes interesting behavior. It’s about policies that affect peoples’ lives.”

U.S. Rep. Laura Gillen, a vulnerable New York Democrat who is being targeted by the House GOP’s campaign arm, “said she is focused on touting her bipartisan work across the aisle, keeping Trump’s name at bay.”

“My messaging has been focused on what I am doing to try and make life more affordable,” Gillen told Bloomberg. “I ran for Congress and said I’d work with anyone from any party to get things done.”

Some warn that campaigning against Trump directly could backfire, especially should the president’s low approval numbers rebound.

Bloomberg notes that Republicans are targeting 29 Democrats, including 23 incumbents who represent voters in districts Trump won.

Democratic incumbents and candidates have stated their messaging plainly. The Republican National Committee is  accusing them of “TDS.”

“Voters want secure borders, lower prices, safer communities, and a strong economy, not Trump Derangement Syndrome,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in a statement. “Americans are seeing through the Democrats’ tired strategy of attacking and vilifying President Trump and his supporters.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Can America Stage a ‘Remarkable Comeback’ After Trump’s ‘Bread and Circuses’: Kristol

Published

on

Do Trump’s “humiliating loss to Iran” and his White House cage fight signal a nation in free fall? Or the moment America wakes up and fights back? Those are the questions The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol is asking.

“The coincidence yesterday of the announcement of an agreement on a deal and the cage match at the White House has led to much discussion of imperial decadence, and of our entering an age of bread and circuses,” writes Kristol in “Bread and Capitulation.” He says that the Roman Empire lasted 80 years after the advent of “bread and circuses,” but warns that “things seem to move faster these days. Our decline shows every likelihood of being far quicker and more thorough than Rome’s.”

Kristol points to The Atlantic‘s Tom Nichols, who analyzed the deal that is expected to end the Iran war.

“The United States has little to celebrate: Trump and his team, in record time, just lost a war to a militarily mediocre—but nonetheless extremely dangerous—adversary,” Nichols wrote. “It is clear that Trump has failed to achieve every one of the goals he put forward for this war of choice, and now he is determined to sign, seal, and deliver America’s capitulation as quickly as possible.”

Iran, says Kristol, “comes out a winner.” But that is less important than the “defeat” of America. He says that “Trump’s failure in Iran has confirmed and accelerated the broader retreat during his second term from our standing as the linchpin and guardian of an American-friendly international order.”

America was “the greatest world power” from 1941 to 2025. But now the nation is just one power “among many, even one bully among many, perhaps the preeminent one, but one without much credibility among either allies or enemies.”

Trump’s failed war, says Kristol, leaves the nation and the world “less feared and less respected,” and the world more dangerous.

But he asks, could “the humiliating loss to Iran—along with the embarrassment of our 250th anniversary celebration—be a kind of blessing?”

Could it provide the catalyst to stop and “reverse our decline in national power and also our slide into imperial decadence?”

He notes that the American people largely opposed Trump’s UFC cage fight at the White House. “Perhaps here, unlike in imperial Rome, it may not be too late to revive the spirit of republican virtue?”

Pointing to the Knicks’ “remarkable comeback,” Kristol asks: Who’s to say America can’t have one too?

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

GOP Lawmakers Turn on Trump: ‘Trying to Undermine Our Institutions’

Published

on

Republican lawmakers and staffers on Capitol Hill are expressing frustration and anger over President Donald Trump’s timing of announcements that go on to undermine their legislative agenda. Some expressed that the president doesn’t consider Congress when he acts, while others suggested that his announcements were intentionally disruptive, MS NOW reports.

From his announcement of the highly controversial naming of Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National Intelligence, to what critics called his proposed $1.8 billion “slush fund” for January 6 rioters, to his 11th-hour endorsement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the seat held by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Trump’s announcements have had a strong impact on Republicans’ efforts to pass legislation.

“The most common thought of most Republicans I’ve talked to is he doesn’t give a s—— about the legislative branch and he pays no attention to anything going on that we’re doing because all of the actions he has taken has done nothing but been unhelpful to us putting stuff on his desk or keeping a lot of our government agencies open,” one House Republican told MS NOW. “Everything is timed so perfectly that it’s like they sit around in the White House and think to themselves when is the worst possible time to do this — and then they do it.”

“I don’t think he’s dumb,” another GOP lawmaker told MS NOW. “I think he does a lot of this stuff on purpose, and I think he’s trying to undermine our institutions, and it’s setting some really bad precedents.”

“We all know the president talks to one group of people, and it’s his base,” the lawmaker also said. “He doesn’t care about anyone else. And when he talks to them, I think a lot of the actions he’s taken is to try to undermine both the legislative branch and the judicial branch and strengthen his position of executive branch and the importance of him sticking around.”

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) suggested that there was little thought behind Trump’s announcements and their effect on Congress.

“I don’t think he thinks about the impact on us, and the timing,” Murkowski told MS NOW. “I just don’t think he thinks about it.”

She also said she does not think the president is “connecting” what lawmakers do daily with his actions.

U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) told MS NOW that “the president’s the president.”

“He can announce his initiatives whenever he wants,” he added, while acknowledging that the “terrible timing” of Trump’s announcements “obviously complicates” Republicans’ efforts.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.