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in April, 2012, the New York Times published a group of essays from different writers on the theme: Are ‘Family Values’ Outdated?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.


‘Your Client Is a Criminal Defendant’: Judge Denies Trump Request to Skip Trial for SCOTUS



Barely hours after New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan gave Donald Trump the same set of rules requiring him to appear in court as all other criminal defendants, the ex-president’s attorney requested his client be allowed to skip trial next Thursday to attend the U.S. Supreme Court arguments on his immunity claim.

“If you do not show up there will be an arrest,” Judge Merchan had told Trump Monday at the start of his criminal trial, according to MSNBC’s Jesse Rodriguez. Trump is facing 34 felony charges for falsification of business records related to his alleged attempts to cover up hush money payments in an effort to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.

Judge Merchan had read from the same rules that apply to all defendants, but right at the end of day one of trial Trump attorney Todd Blanche made his request.

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin reports, “after the potential jurors are gone, the fireworks start after Blanche asks Merchan to allow Trump to attend the SCOTUS argument on presidential immunity next Thursday, 4/25.”

READ MORE: ‘What Will Happen in the Situation Room?’: Trump Appearing to Sleep in Court Fuels Concerns

“The Manhattan DA’s office opposes the request, saying they have accommodated Trump enough,” MSNBC’s Katie Phang adds, citing Rubin’s reporting.

Judge Merchan “acknowledges a Supreme Court argument is a ‘big deal,’ but says that the jury’s time is a big deal too. Blanche says they don’t think they should be here at all, suggesting that the trial never should have been scheduled during campaign season.”

“That comment appeared to trigger Merchan, who asked, voice dripping with incredulity, ‘You don’t think you should be here at all?'” Rubin writes.

“He then softly asks Blanche to move along from that objection, on which he has already ruled. Merchan then got stern, ruling that Trump is not required to be at SCOTUS but is required, by law, to attend his criminal trial here.”

“Your client is a criminal defendant in New York. He is required to be here. He is not required to be in the Supreme Court. I will see him here next week,” Judge Merchan told Blanche, CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane reported.

That was not the only request Trump’s attorneys made to have their client excused from the criminal proceedings.

Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien reports, “Blanche says that the campaign has taken pains to schedule events on Wednesdays and asks Merchan if Trump be excused from any hearings that take place on Wednesdays, when the jury is in recess. Merchan says he will take this into consideration.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Blanche also asked Judge Merchan to allow Trump to skip trial to attend his son Barron’s high school graduation. While the judge has yet to rule, Trump told reporters at the end of day one of trial, “it looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation.”

The judge told Trump, “I cannot rule on those dates at this time.”

But Trump told reporters, “It looks like the judge isn’t going to allow me to escape this scam, it’s a scam trial.”

Watch below or at this link



Continue Reading


‘What Will Happen in the Situation Room?’: Trump Appearing to Sleep in Court Fuels Concerns



Donald Trump’s apparent sleeping in court on day one of his criminal trial for alleged business fraud related to a cover-up of “hush money” election interference has critics concerned.

While initial reactions to the news largely mocked him as “Sleepy Don,” or “Drowsy Don,” political and legal experts are wondering if the 77-year old ex-president would be able to stay awake during times of crisis, when an alert president would be critical to the nation’s security.

The New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman, the longtime “Trump whisperer,” reported the ex-president “seemed alternately irritated and exhausted Monday morning,” “appeared to nod off a few times, his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest.” She added the ex-president’s attorney “passed him notes for several minutes before Mr. Trump appeared to jolt awake and notice them.”

READ MORE: ‘Staged Photo Op’ of Trump With Black Chick-fil-A Patrons Was ‘True Retail Politics’ Says Fox News

Haberman followed up her Times article with a CNN appearance detailing more of what she saw. The Guardian‘s Victoria Bekiempis, MSNBC’s Katie Phang, and others also reported Trump was seen nodding off.

Critics raised concerns that question Trump’s ability to perform the duties of President.

“If Trump is too old and weak to stay awake at his own criminal trial, what do you think will happen in the Situation Room?” asked former senior advisor to President Barack Obama Dan Pfeiffer.

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch invoked Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 AM phone call” ad from the 2008 campaign, and wrote:

“2008: Which candidate can handle the 3 a.m. phone call?

2024: Which candidate can handle the 3 p.m. phone call?”

Several also noted that Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, testified for 11 hours on live television before a congressional committee and did not fall asleep. Some also noted that President Joe Biden sat for a five-hour deposition with Special Consul Robert Hur and did not fall asleep.

READ MORE: ‘Not a Good Start’: Judge Slams Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Recusal Claims as a ‘Loose End’

Calling it “simply incredible,” professor of law, MSNBC/NBC News legal contributor and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance asked, “If he can’t keep his eyes open when his own liberty is at stake, why would Americans have confidence he’s capable of focus when our country’s interests require sound presidential leadership?”

MSNBC contributor Brian Tyler Cohen commented, “To be clear, ‘Sleepy Joe’ is awake and criss-crossing the country, while Trump is literally asleep at his own criminal trial.”

Former journalist Jennifer Schultz observed, “Moment of truth for all the legacy media outlets who hyped the Biden age stories. Now we have actual evidence of the other candidate falling asleep at a critical time.”


Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading


Fox Personality’s Tweet Called ‘Jury Tampering’ by US Congressman



A Fox personality and Fox News contributor’s social media post on Monday is raising eyebrows, as one U.S. Congressman calls it “jury tampering” and a legal expert suggests it could be “conspiring to commit jury tampering.”

Clay Travis is an attorney and the founder of the conservative “sports and American culture” website Outkick, which was purchased by Fox Corporation in 2021.

His Fox News bio calls him “the founder of the fastest-growing national multimedia platform,” and, “One of the most electrifying and outspoken personalities in the industry,” who “provides his unfiltered opinion on the most compelling headlines throughout sports, culture, and politics.”

READ MORE: ‘Not a Good Start’: Judge Slams Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Recusal Claims as a ‘Loose End’

On Monday, Travis’ account on X, formerly Twitter, displayed a post that reads: “If you’re a Trump supporter in New York City who is a part of the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, dooming the case via hung jury. It’s the most patriotic thing you could possibly do.”

“Jury tampering. That’s what they do. *It’s a felony,” wrote U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) in response.

National security attorney Bradley Moss weighed in, writing, “Clay is arguably conspiring to commit jury tampering here by encouraging someone to deliberately engage in jury nullification. Not a wise move by Clay.”

Former federal and state prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, now the editor-in-chief of MediasTouch, wrote simply, “This is MAGA.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah, also an attorney, commented, “Hoping Manhattan DA is aware of this attempted jury tampering by Fox News regular Clay Travis.” He also wrote: “This is the exact type of juror tampering I knew Trumpers would engage in. Next Clay will tell Trumpers to bribe jurors or witnesses. MAGA is a cancer!”

Travis, responding to Congressman Swalwell, denied the allegation:

“This isn’t jury tampering you imbecile. I would nullify if I were seated on this jury as a matter of principle. I think all Americans with a comprehension of basic justice should do the same.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.