Connect with us

NOM, Regnerus And Robert Oscar Lopez



We have been reporting on an invalid sociological study –allegedly, but not actually, about gay parents’ child outcomes — carried out by researcher Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin.

Regnerus’s known total of $785,000 for the study was arranged by The Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation, where Robert P. George – head of the anti-gay-rights, scientifically disreputable National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — holds positions of authority. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

A preponderance of evidence appears to suggest that Regnerus is politically in collusion with his lying, anti-gay-rights funders. This report adds to the weight of evidence.

Many of Regnerus’s past public statements are arrogantly oblivious to the very existence of gay human beings. For example, in April, 2012, the New York Times published a group of essays from different writers on the theme: Are ‘Family Values’ Outdated? 

Regnerus’s contribution was a NOM-like slogan: One Man, One Woman, One Marriage.

Not only has Regnerus never once voiced support for gay rights; he has been haughtily dismissive of some of his gay victims’ calls for him to clarify his positions in the toxic wake of his Witherspoon/NOM-funded “study.”

Take, for example, Dr. Eric Anderson, a sociologist at the University of Winchester, England.

Along with over 200 other Ph.D.s and M.D.s, Dr. Anderson signed a letter expressing concern over the Regnerus study’s lack of intellectual integrity, as well as over the very suspicious circumstances through which the study got published.

This reporter copied the 200+ signers of that letter on an e-mail to Regnerus, asking Regnerus questions pertaining to the baseline methodological failings of his study.

Regnerus ignored the e-mail. Yet, Dr. Anderson copied everybody on an e-mail which he  in turn sent to Regnerus, asking him to respond to my questions about his study methodology, as well as to some additional questions. Regnerus apparently ignored Dr. Anderson’s e-mail, which read as follows:

I’ve also asked you whether or not you maintain personal animus toward sexual minorities. Do you believe in equal marriage? Do you believe sexual minorities should be able to adopt? Because many of us on this list have been working hard to undo the damage you have caused. It would therefore be appreciated if you could answer these questions. My right (or not) to marriage and family (as a gay man) is more important than your academic dignity. So please do answer our questions.”

Whereas Regnerus utterly ignores his gay victims, and refuses even to acknowledge that they have posed questions to him, it seems there are few if any forms of collusion with his anti-gay-rights funders that Regnerus would refuse.

For example, on August 6, 2012, The Witherspoon Institute published a gay-bashing essay by Robert Oscar Lopez. In his gay-bashing essay, Lopez reports that Regnerus contacted him, on July 17, 2012, to thank him for sharing “his perspective on LGBT issues.” Lopez states that he and Regnerus conducted “an e-mail correspondence.”

There are several red flags on fire in Regnerus having contacted and conducted e-mail correspondence with the gay-bashing Lopez about his “study,” and with Lopez’s gay-bashing essay about Regnerus’s “study” then getting published on Regnerus’s study funders’ website.

Shortly after the Regnerus study was published on June 10, 2012, Lopez began appearing in umpteen online forums, cheerleading the Regnerus study, alleging he was raised by a lesbian mother, and venting mind-boggling contempt for “liberals” and for LGBTers. Lopez’s accounts of his biography are so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that it would be impossible to compile them into a coherent narrative. In commenting about the Regnerus study online, Lopez very frequently misrepresented what the study — invalid as it is — actually says. Indeed, in his Regnerus-funders’-site essay, Lopez alleges that the Regnerus study is about bi-sexual parents, a verifiable falsehood.

Lopez’s additional blather along those lines is of little importance, in comparison to how unethical Regnerus’s correspondence with Lopez was and remains. Regnerus in and throughout his study refers to his respondents’ parents as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” Regnerus in his study did not at all attempt to distinguish between gay and bi-sexual parents. Yet, Lopez accuses Regnerus’s critics of ignoring bi-sexual people — (Lopez alleges that he is one, while congratulating himself for marrying a woman) — while extravagantly thanking Regnerus for his study, because of the “voice” it gives to children of bi-sexual parents.

If Regnerus’s “study” is actually about children of bi-sexual parents, then Regnerus should immediately revise his written study so it does not have parents pinned as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” Read the Lopez essay through, and you will see, he is extremely insistent that Regnerus’s study is mainly about children of bi-sexual parents, not about children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers.” If Lopez is wrong, and Regnerus continues to maintain that his study surveyed children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” then he should immediately correct Lopez — being as Regnerus was in correspondence with Lopez about his study, and Lopez’s essay about Regnerus’s study then got published on Regnerus’s funder’s website.

A clear and unaltering pattern has developed, of Regnerus on the one hand whining in response to any criticism of his study methodology and funding, while on the other hand, Regnerus allows gay bashers to use his “study” as justification for all manner of gay bashing, without ever complaining that they are using his study to gay bash, and without Regnerus ever correcting the falsehoods about his “study” that the gay bashers are communicating to the public.

There is some appearance that Lopez could be a NOM plant. The same NOM strategy documents released through court order in March 2012 — (describing NOM’s evil plots to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility” between African-Americans and gays) — also described an evil plot to lure children of gay parents into denouncing their parents to the public. Lopez coincidentally fits that role.

The following facts; 1) that top Witherspoon authorities also are top authorities at NOM; 2) that Regnerus apparently cultivated Lopez, along with Lopez’s misunderstandings of what the Regnerus study says; and 3) that Regnerus’s NOM-linked funders then published Lopez’s gay-bashing essay, inclusive of misrepresentations of what Regnerus’s study says, certainly 4) justify skepticism apropos of Regnerus’s and his NOM-linked study funders’ motivations vis-a-vis Lopez, particularly in light of the NOM strategy documents.

Regnerus’s relationship with Lopez appears to violate the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics. For example, the preamble to Section 10 of the Code of Ethics says this: “Sociologists adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their professional services, credentials and expertise, work products, or publications, whether these communications are from themselves or from others.” (Bolding added).

Regnerus certainly has good enough ongoing relationships with his NOM-linked funders at Witherspoon and with Lopez that he could insist on an accurate representation being made of his “study” in Lopez’s essay, which is rife with inaccuracies about the Regnerus “study.”

Do not hold your breath, waiting for Regnerus to behave honorably and/or within the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics.

Lopez in his gay-bashing confusion can not even keep details of his life straight within this one essay, still less from 1) one of his gay-bashing online comments about the Regnerus “study” to 2) the next.  For example, in his essay, Lopez alleges that among his siblings, he was the only one not to have the presence of a father through to maturity. Yet, Lopez says that he was born when his mother was 34 — and that she died when he was 19 — meaning that all of his brothers and sisters — in order to have grown up with their father around — would have had to be fully grown by the time the mother was 34.  Lopez also reports that, in his opinion, because he did not have a father present, he exhibited cartoonish stereotypes of gay males, including “girlish mannerisms” and a lisp.  He tries to pin his alleged gay male lisp on his mother and his mother’s female lover, as though a male child would learn a cartoonish, stereotypical “gay” lisp from a lesbian mother. Moreover, although for about one dozen years, Lopez’s mother and her girlfriend lived in separate houses and only got together on weekends, Lopez alleges that he experienced “‘gay parenting’ as that term is understood today.”

Well, no, genius. Today’s gay parents overwhelmingly live together in a single dwelling with the children they are raising. Meanwhile, Regnerus in his published study — scientifically invalid though it is — says that his study “may best capture what might be called an ‘earlier generation’ of children of same-sex parents.”

If Lopez now is Regnerus’s mouthpiece for telling the world that Regnerus’s own understanding of his “study” has changed — such that Regnerus no longer thinks that the “study” captures an “earlier generation” — but rather, that Regnerus now thinks that his “study” represents “‘gay parenting’ as that term is understood today” — then maybe Regnerus should make that statement on his own, instead of implicitly approving its appearance in Lopez’s gay-bashing essay, as a representation of what his “study” is about.

The mess is, after all, right there on Regnerus’s NOM-linked study funders’ website. Regnerus conducted correspondence about his study and “LGBT issues” with Lopez, the author of that essay on Regnerus’s study funder’s website. And, the American Sociological Association says that sociologists “adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their professional . . . .  work products, or publications . . .  whether these communications are from themselves or from others.”

So which is it, Mr. Regnerus?  Does your study measure an “‘earlier generation’ of same-sex parents,” or — as your correspondent Robert Lopez says in an essay published on your study funder’s website — or does your study measure “gay parenting as that term is understood today”?

It is obvious why Regnerus’s NOM-linked funders want the public to believe that the Regnerus study is about “gay parenting as the term is understood today.” They want the negativity of the “study” to stick to today’s gay parents, and for voters then to vote against today’s gay parents’ — and their children’s — rights.

Regnerus is despicable for enabling this, and for not making any corrective public comment about it.

Remember; 1) Regnerus contacted Lopez first, having seen his gay-bashing online commentary, and then Regnerus conducted a correspondence with Lopez, about his study in relation to LGBT “issues;” 2) Lopez’s essay contains numerous and substantial misrepresentations of what the Regnerus study says; and 3)  Section 10 of the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics says this: “Sociologists adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their professional services, credentials and expertise, work products, or publications, whether these communications are from themselves or from others.” (Bolding added).

The University of Texas at Austin — (which is conducting a scientific misconduct Inquiry to determine if a full Investigation of Regnerus is warranted) — should take special note of Regnerus’s relationship with Lopez.

NOM’s shameless lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher very promptly cross-posted Lopez’s essay to the National Review, to which she regularly contributes, adding to the post her just absolutely preposterous and outlandish allegation that children of gay parents have not been permitted to tell their stories in the media. There are hardly words to do justice to the cesspool depths of Gallagher’s gay-bashing bigot depravity. Just when you thought Gallagher could not possibly stoop any lower, she stoops, to allege a non-existent media blackout of stories told by children raised by gay parents.  Of course, Gallagher would only be interested in negative stories about gay parents from children they raised.  Gallagher would sneer at and not acknowledge the validity of the professional baseball player Joe Valentine’s statements about his parents: “It’s no different than having a mother and father,” Valentine has said: “These are the two women who raised me, and they are wonderful people. It’s just not a big deal to me. Why should it be?”

Notice how Gallagher’s cunning, sleazebag bigot falsehood — that the media blocks children of gay parents from talking about their stories — fits in to the documented evil NOM plot to get children of gay parents to denounce their parents to the public. Lopez’s gay-bashing essay of course also was immediately cross-posted to the NOM blog, with heaps of gay-bashing bigotry voiced in the comments. The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has used the Regnerus “study” as grounds for stating that gay parents should not have custody of their own children. AFA and NOM are known to have partnered in the past for political gay-bashing projects.

Not only does Mark Regnerus not have the decency to answer questions posed him by this reporter about  his “study” methodology — and/or by his victims — victims such as Dr. Eric Anderson — Regnerus is so iniquitous that he seeks out pathetic, disturbed gay-bashers on the internet and cultivates relationships with them, at least in part towards getting gay-bashing misrepresentations of his “study” published on his NOM-linked funders’ websites, with his correspondent Lopez’s gay-bashing essay — misrepresenting his “study” —  then getting gleefully reposted hither and yon by Regnerus’s NOM-linked accomplices in political gay bashing, as Regnerus remains silent about their misrepresentations of his “study.”


New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on,, The New York Blade,, 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.

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.


Reporters Reveal Some Republicans Don’t Understand What a Default Means – and Don’t Believe the Debt Ceiling Is Real



CNN’s Jim Acosta and John Avlon compared notes on Republicans speaking on raising the debt ceiling over the weekend only to realize that the far-right members refuse to support the deal between Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden.

Acosta cited an interview he conducted Saturday with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who said he’s voted for shutdowns and would vote again this week.

After ranting about cutting spending, Acosta said, “Well, you can have the argument about cutting spending during the budget and appropriations process, but as you know, Congressman, the U.S. has never missed making payments on its bills before. In the last 45 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 65 times. So, again, I go back to the question: is it responsible — I understand what you’re saying about how much your daughter spends, but we’re not talking about $15. We’re talking about the American economy. Is it responsible to be the deciding vote to send the country into default?”

Burchett claimed that the country wasn’t going to be sent into default. He crafted a conspiracy that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen kept changing the date the U.S. default would happen.

“Nobody is, as the young people say, nobody has provided the receipts. Nobody has called her into Washington and said, ‘Show us the math on this,'” he said.

Yellen works at the Treasury Department, which is in Washington.

Burchett also had his own math, saying that if they cut the budget spending to the 2022 levels, the country would be in a surplus. The House passed a massive defense spending package that would have required cuts from other places.

“All they’re doin’ right now is scarin’ people,” Burchett claimed. “They’re talkin’ about cutting programs that have no need other than political cronyism, we’re tellin’ our seniors — and the Democrats will, and I get it — they’re tellin’ the seniors they’re gonna be cut. Veterans are gonna be cut. And nothing can be farther (sic) from the truth. And that’s just the reality of politics.”

The reason Democrats were citing cuts to seniors and veterans goes back to the Republican Party budget bill that required cuts to seniors and veterans. That’s because returning to the 2022 budget levels means making cuts to increases already passed by Congress.

Acosta turned back to Burchett to ask if he believed the debt ceiling wasn’t real.

“I think the debt ceiling is — it’s just a creative thing to hold us into responsible — into check,” said Burchett.

Avlon cited Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), who claimed he refused to sign a bill that would bankrupt the economy.

“Well, hold it right there,” said Avlon. “I mean, if you let the country default on its debt, that’s functionally the same thing.”

An annoyed Avlon was frustrated the process was even something allowed to happen.

“It’s a fact, Congress has to control the pursestrings. So, frankly, someone should figure out the 14th Amendment side of this because I think this is not the way we’re supposed to play ball, the greatest nation in the world constantly every couple of years when there’s a Democratic president flirting with defaulting on our debt because it’s fiscal policy by extortion,” said Avlon. “This is a win to the extent that we came up to a bipartisan agreement, but this is not the way the greatest nation in the world should conduct its fiscal policy. It’s ridiculous. And it didn’t happen when Donald Trump was president because Democrats worked with Republicans to ensure the debt ceiling was raised three times.”

See the discussion below or at the link here.

Image: GOP Rep. Tim Burchett


Continue Reading


‘Start the Kevin McCarthy Death-Clock’ After Biden Wins Debt Ceiling Battle: Rick Wilson



Appearing late Saturday night on MSNBC after it was announced that President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had reached an agreement “in principle’ on a budget deal, former GOP strategist Rick Wilson claimed this could be the beginning of the end for McCathy’s speakership.

Sitting in on a panel with guest host Michael Steele, Wilson suggested that McCarthy’s decision to compromise with the president to avoid a default that would spin the economy into chaos will not go over well with far-right members of his House caucus who could make a motion to “vacate the chair” to express their displeasure.

Asked by host Steel about what comes next, Wilson stated it was a win for the White House which will not make conservatives happy.

RELATED: ‘Crazy cuckoo MAGA people’ could sink debt ceiling deal: Dem strategist

“Great night for Joe Biden, great night for the White House even though I think their messaging has been kind of tentative the past few weeks” the Lincoln Project founder began. “I think though we are now going to start the Kevin McCarthy death-clock. He has certainly got a very angry part of his caucus tonight who probably burning up his phone no matter how good it is for the country not to default.”

“It’s not going to please the chaos caucus in the GOP,” he added.

Watch below or at the link:


Continue Reading


Debt Ceiling: McCarthy Faces ‘Lingering Anger’ and a Possible Revolt as Far-Right House Members Start Issuing Threats



As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) continues to negotiate a deal to avoid a debt crisis, members of the far-right Freedom Caucus are growing furious with him over broken promises he made to them.

According to MSNBC political analyst Steve Benen, with a slim GOP majority in the House, McCarthy is walking a tightrope to get a budget deal passed and may need help from House Democrats if members of his caucus refuse to go along with him.

As Benen points out, in order to win the speakership McCarthy agreed to an easier path for a motion to “vacate the chair” which could end his tenure as Speaker. That could come into play if the Freedom Caucus stages a revolt.

“… as the negotiations approach an apparent finish line, the House Republicans’ most radical faction is learning that it isn’t likely to get everything its members demanded — and for the Freedom Caucus, that’s not going to work,” he wrote in his MSNBC column.

ALSO IN THE NEWS: Trump in danger of heightened espionage charges after bombshell report: legal expert

Citing a Washington Times report that stated, “[Freedom Caucus members] want everything from the debt limit bill passed by the House last month plus several new concessions from the White House,” Benen suggested far-right House Republicans are now issuing veiled threats.

In an interview, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) stated, “I am going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team. I don’t like the direction they are headed.”

With Politico reporting, “The [House Freedom Caucus] was already unlikely to support a final bipartisan deal, but lingering anger with Kevin McCarthy could have lasting implications on his speakership,” Benen added, “If this is simply a matter of lingering ill-will from members who come to believe that GOP leaders ‘caved,’ the practical consequences might be limited. But let’s also not forget that McCarthy, while begging his own members for their support during his protracted fight for the speaker’s gavel, agreed to tweak the motion-to-vacate-the-chair rules, which at least in theory, would make it easier for angry House Republicans to try to oust McCarthy from his leadership position.”

Adding the caveat that he is not predicting an imminent McCarthy ouster he added, “But if the scope of the Freedom Caucus’ discontent reaches a fever pitch, a hypothetical deal clears thanks to significant Democratic support, don’t be surprised if we all start hearing the phrase ‘vacate the chair” a lot more frequently.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.