Gay Parenting: After The Regnerus Debacle, Where Are The Apologies?
Now that an internal audit at Social Science Research has confirmed that the Mark Regnerus (image, left,) “gay parenting†study was indeed so badly flawed it never should have survived peer review, it’s safe to say that we can move past examining the specifics of how it went wrong, and start looking at the deeper question of why so many in the media and the right wing readily accepted its conclusions with little critical scrutiny while dismissing the valid concerns raised by others. Given that their hailing of the study as a revelation about the supposed inferiority of same-sex parents was actually based on a paper that should have been immediately disqualified from publication, are they prepared to correct the record?
What many of them described as a paper about “gay parenting†covered barely a handful of respondents who had lived with same-sex couples as parents for an appreciable fraction of their childhood, far too few to be representative of the true proficiency of same-sex parents. This is not merely a matter of partisan political opinion – Regnerus himself acknowledged these shortcomings. Are these reporters and activists willing to admit they were wrong?
Where is the apology from Maggie Gallagher, who wrote that the Regnerus study is “the best gay-parenting study we have to date“ and shows that “the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad,” when the study’s “gay fathers†and “lesbian mothers†groups were actually packed with as many unstable families as possible?
Where is the apology from William Saletan of Slate, who decried legitimate criticism of the study’s faulty conclusions as part of a “liberal war on science�
Where is the apology from Ed Whelan of the National Review, who described all other studies on same-sex parenting as “schlock social science“ compared to the Regnerus study, and claimed that the new study discredits “the junk social science that so many proponents of same-sex marriage propagate,†even as he admitted that he doesn’t “regard Regnerus’s study as authoritatively and definitively settling much of anythingâ€?
Where is the apology from Mona Charen, who claimed the study showed that “same-sex households provide children with the least stabilityâ€, when the study actually included hardly any actual households with same-sex parents?
Where is the apology from the Deseret News, which also erroneously claimed that the study’s results reflect “children growing up in lesbian households†– and then, ironically, called for “healthy skepticism for so-called consensus findings, especially with regard to hot-button social issues where the biases of researchers might influence design and interpretation�
Where is the apology from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who uncritically repeated the study’s methodological sleight-of-hand of defining a child of “homosexual parents†as having at least one parent who ever had a same-sex relationship?
Where is the apology from Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who cited the study’s clearly insufficient data to demand that gay parents should be denied custody of their children?
Where is the apology from the American College of Pediatricians, a non-authoritative anti-gay group which cited the Regnerus study in an amicus brief in a federal case against the Defense of Marriage Act and again falsely claimed that it was about “children raised by same-sex couples�
Where is the apology from political strategist Frank Schubert, who claimed that the study’s results warrant banning same-sex marriage?
Where is the apology from Christian Smith, who glossed over the study’s flaws and instead dismissed criticism of its shortcomings as “an academic auto-da-fé†against Regnerus?
Where is the apology from the 18 social scientists who claimed that “much of the public criticism Regnerus has received is unwarranted†and misleadingly described it as a “study on same-sex parentingâ€? (And if you’re impressed by that number, note that 200 researchers signed a letter which raised concerns about “the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual meritâ€.)
We can keep going all day. I realize not everyone has an education in social science – I certainly don’t. But the mistakes of the Regnerus study are easily understandable by the layperson, and those in the media whose job it is to report on this have an obligation to do so accurately in the course of informing the public. Here, many of them have failed, and because of their lack of diligence, they’ve unjustly impugned parents like me and my partner in the minds of millions. They are responsible for that. Does this not warrant an apology? Can they admit that they were wrong, that these criticisms of the study’s structure and conclusions were indeed valid, and that they failed to recognize this? Or do they just not do this anymore?
Â
Zinnia Jones is an atheist activist, writer, and video blogger focusing on LGBTQ rights and religious belief. Originally from Chicago, she’s currently living in Florida with her partner Heather and their two children.
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.
 |
As Americans watch grocery prices rise, inflation tick upward, and millions face soaring medical insurance premiums next year, President Donald Trump is trying to center his message on affordability — even as he denies what many Americans are experiencing.
On Monday, the president will spend time with McDonald’s owners, operators and suppliers to promote his new “affordability” message, which Axios calls “part of an escalating White House push to take on Americans’ economic worries.”
But the message Trump is expected to send will be aimed at McDonald’s owners and franchisees, rather than at low- and middle-income customers.
READ MORE: Democrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028
“During remarks at an Impact Summit hosted in Washington by McDonald’s, Trump is expected to tout steps he has taken to support small businesses and job creators,” Axios reported.
Earlier this month Trump told reporters, “Affordability, they call it, was a con job by the Democrats.”
He is also expected to push his “No Tax on Tips … No Tax on Overtime … No Tax on Social Security” claims. Some experts say Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” did not include “No Tax on Social Security.”
Axios’ Mike Allen reported, “A key message at the McDonald’s summit will be that value and affordability are ‘so important to consumers and elected officials [that] our franchisees and company are co-investing to bring extra value and affordability to our customers,’ an official told me.”
The White House also took a swing at the Biden administration.
“The Biden administration started the affordability crisis, but President Trump will end it so all Americans can achieve economic prosperity,” a White House official told Allen.
President Trump on the 2024 campaign trail vowed to lower prices “on day one,” as CNN reported.
READ MORE: ‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus
Image via Reuters
Attorney General Pam Bondi quickly — and publicly — agreed to fulfill President Donald Trump’s request that she use the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate Democrats and corporations that may have had ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump on Friday declared that Epstein is the “Democrat’s problem” and not Republicans’, then called for the DOJ, FBI, and Bondi “to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”
The New York Times reported that the “inquiry appeared to be retribution for the renewed focus on his own ties to Mr. Epstein.”
Just hours later, Bondi agreed.
READ MORE: Trump Stumbles Over ‘God Bless America’ Lyrics at Veterans Day Ceremony
“Thank you, Mr. President. SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, and I’ve asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the Department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people,” she wrote.
The New York Times called Bondi’s acquiescence “a stark demonstration of her willingness to surrender the traditional independence of the Justice Department to serve Trump’s personal political agenda.”
The Times also reported that Bondi assigning the investigation to the Southern District of New York “could create significant conflict within an office known for its investigative might and independence.”
NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake reported that “In July, the FBI and DOJ wrote in their memo that they were not releasing the Epstein files in part because ‘We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.’ – and now, after a push from the President, here we are.”
Legal experts and other critics denounced the moves.
READ MORE: Democrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028
“Count the ways they’re corrupting DOJ,” wrote former longtime U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, now an MSNBC legal analyst and professor of law. “Presidents don’t direct AG’s to open criminal cases, especially ones designating only Dems for investigation when POTUS himself is involved. DOJ doesn’t publicize criminal investigations & the AG definitely doesn’t assign them on Twitter.”
MSNBC executive producer Kyle Griffin asked, “If this investigation was legitimate, why wasn’t this investigation opened months ago? If this investigation was legitimate, why isn’t everyone mentioned in Epstein’s emails being investigated?”
Republican U.S. Rep. Don Bacon added, “When the president gives orders to Pam Bondi and our law enforcement arms of the federal government, it undercuts the credibility of our law enforcement.”
“I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to do it. I would ask him not to do that, because all it does is taint our legal system,” Bacon concluded.
Responding to Bondi’s remarks, civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler wrote: “Unabashed corruption.”
“This has absolutely nothing to do with crime,” she stated. “Pam Bondi is just debasing her entire department for her liege so that she can stave off Congress from releasing whatever damning information she has on Trump. It’s a cover-up pure and simple and merely an indication of Trump’s desperation.”
READ MORE: ‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus
Image via Reuters
One of Capitol Hill’s most prominent — and most vocal — Democrats is warning about what he says are the ways President Donald Trump could try to remain in power beyond his current term.
President Trump has long hinted that he is interested in a third term, and even has had red “Trump 2028” caps as part of his merchandise offering. And while he recently appeared to put to rest questions about a third term — prohibited under a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution — by saying he has been told he cannot run, doubts among some still linger.
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) on Friday shared what he suggested were possible ways Trump could try to stay in power past 2028 — and warned he thinks it’s possible that he will.
“I think he is right now trying to scheme a way to be able to stay,” Senator Murphy told The Bulwark’s Sam Stein at the 2025 Texas Tribune Festival.
READ MORE: ‘Retribution’: Trump Calls for Epstein Inquiry Into Democrats
“I think you have a potential, two potential Supreme Court vacancies coming up,” Murphy noted, “and it may be very important for him to install folks on the Supreme Court who may be willing to entertain radical ideas about the restrictions on the Constitution, about a third term.”
Murphy continued with an alternative theory, suggesting the President Trump “may just be interested in installing Donald Trump Jr. or another family member in the White House.”
But then the Connecticut Democrat served up a warning.
“Whatever he’s planning on doing, he can’t get away with it unless he destroys the ability of the people to speak their mind in elections because he and his party are going to lose in 2026 and 2028 unless he’s successful in rigging the election,” Murphy declared.
He vowed, “we’re going to do everything in our power, and we need to order all of our advocacy in the United States Senate and the House to stop him from doing it.”
READ MORE: ‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus
Murphy continued with his warnings.
“I don’t think anybody with ambition right now should be planning on running for president in 2028 because we may not have a free and fair election in 2028,” Murphy declared. “We all have to be in the business of saving our democracy right now.”
“I do think we have to, all of us,” he added, “be traveling the entire country, whether it be an early primary state or not, to build this political resistance movement.”
Q: Is your anticipation that Trump is going to try to remain in the White House after 2028?
CHRIS MURPHY: Sure. I think right now he is trying to scheme a way to stay. pic.twitter.com/mw4Zco38Cv
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 14, 2025
READ MORE: Trump Stumbles Over ‘God Bless America’ Lyrics at Veterans Day Ceremony
Trump to Rub Elbows With McDonald’s Owners in Push to Promote ‘Affordability’
DOJ Blasted for Taking Epstein Investigation Orders From Trump
Democrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028
‘Retribution’: Trump Calls for Epstein Inquiry Into Democrats
‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus
News3 days agoDOJ Blasted for Taking Epstein Investigation Orders From Trump
News4 days ago‘He Sued to Block Kids From Getting SNAP’: Trump Torched for Biblical Defense of Children
News3 days agoDemocrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028
News4 days agoMelania Trump to Appear With President as Epstein Files Take Center Stage
News3 days ago‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus
News3 days ago‘Retribution’: Trump Calls for Epstein Inquiry Into Democrats
News4 days agoCongressman Conway? Top Trump Critic Reportedly Eyeing House Bid
News4 days ago‘Concepts of a Plan’: White House and GOP Under Fire for Health Care Cost Crisis
