Connect with us

OPINION: Is John Corvino In Cahoots With NOM On Regnerus ‘Study’?

Published

on

I never did like the smell of gay philosopher John Corvino collaborating with NOM’s Maggie Gallagher on a book, Debating Same-Sex Marriage, and book promotions during a presidential election year.

Because Corvino is beholden to the publisher to help with book promotions, he can go only so far in his criticisms of Gallagher and NOM.

Would the head of the NAACP co-author a book “debating” David Duke the white supremacist?

One does not debate such monsters, because accepting to debate them gives their monstrous bigotry an unwarranted imprimatur of respectability.

Certain attitudes, statements and actions just do cross over a line; Gallagher has said she is not “willing” to live in a country that gives anti-discrimination protections to gay people, she has knowingly sought to perpetuate conditions that increase youth suicide levels, her organization sponsors rallies where its speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death,” and one of its leaders, William Duncan, held a Liberty University symposium sessions titled “Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens; Who Deserves Protected Class Status?”

A recent hoax perpetrated thanks to NOM-connected funding by the University of Texas’s religious right-wing sociologist Mark Regnerus “found” that homosexual parents are dangerous to children.

NOM has been running with sadistic joy, spreading the “findings” of the Regnerus hoax its co-founder helped finance, exacerbating what the Southern Poverty Law Center long has noted as NOM’s propensity to tell known negative falsehoods about gay people.

Because Corvino and Gallagher were already in a business collaboration through their co-authored book with their publisher, and have long been seen engaging in inane banter with each other, as though knowingly perpetuating conditions that exacerbate youth suicide qualified somebody as a delightful tea party guest, when the Regnerus excrement hit the fan, Corvino and Gallagher brought their act to the pages of the right-wing National Review.

Corvino had stated that for the purposes of Regnerus’s study, Ted Haggard would have been classified as a gay father. Gallagher told him he was wrong about that. He responded by doubling down to insist that she was in error about his being wrong about the Haggard family vis-a-vis Regnerus’s study. It was all more fun than a barrel of anti-gay bigots.

The trouble is that Corvino is totally wrong. The Regnerus Survey Instrument first asked respondents their ages, to make sure that they were in the right age range, and then asked them if they lived together with their biological mother and father until they were 18. If they answered “Yes,” they got skipped ahead in the survey, and never asked whether one of their parents had ever had a “same sex romantic relationship.” A young adult child of the Haggard union would truthfully answer that their biological mother and father had them under a same roof until they were 18. That Haggard family survivor would then not be asked whether Ted, the gay-bashing, meth-abusing, gay hustler-hiring hypocrite, had ever had a “same-sex romantic relationship.” Their parent Ted Haggard would not get classified as “gay.”

Yet there is John Corvino, gay rights champion and NOM/Gallagher collaborator, insisting that a Ted Haggard would have been classified as a gay father in Regnerus’s study, even though that is verifiably false.

With Gallagher leading the promotions of the study, and Corvino playing dumb-guy sidekick to her,  he helps to cast her promotions of Regnerus is a “smart” light; Corvino is making Gallagher look good; pathetic for him as that might be.

Regnerus’s University of Texas is investing a lot of time and money into promoting the NOM-related-funded Regnerus hoax. NOM leaders evidently handpicked, and certainly approved of the religious right-wing Regnerus of the University of Texas carrying out their study on same-sex parenting, even though Regnerus has no credentials in that field.  And what an extraordinary coincidence it is, that John Corvino earned his Ph.D. from that very same University of Texas, Austin.

Is it really just coincidence, that 1) the University of Texas, Austin is using its economic resources to promote the NOM-Witherspoon-funded Regnerus-study; that 2) NOM’s Maggie Gallagher has a business collaboration with John Corvino, from which they both harvest advantages; that; 3) both Regnerus and Corvino have a connection with the University of Texas, Austin, and that; 4) all of those varied NOM-related connections to UT — from which UT is profiting — are occurring simultaneously in an election year?

Is the appearance that 1) NOM; 2) Maggie Gallagher; 3) the UT-and-NOM-connected John Corvino, and; 4) the UT-and-NOM-connected Mark Regnerus all got in on action centering on 5) the University of Texas, Austin in an election year only an appearance, or did some sort of planning go into this?

After all, Mark Regnerus had no prior experience in the field of same-sex parenting, and any number of appropriately-credentialed sociologists might have been called on to carry out a study on same-sex parenting instead. How very curious that a not-appropriately-credentialed, religious arch-social-regressive scholar at a university system overseen by religious right Regents appointed by the religious right Governor Rick Perry — who has endorsed Mitt Romney, who has signed the anti-gay-rights NOM pledge — should have been NOM-Witherspoon’s choice to carry out a study on same-sex parenting.

Let us not forget that the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform says that homosexuality tears at the fabric of society. And let us not ignore that Corvino’s public remarks on Regnerus have mainly involved his National Review back-and-forth with Gallagher, consistent with a book promotions plan, and that Corvino did not sign the letter from over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s condemning the study.

As a “public intellectual” with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas, Austin, Corvino is in a position to demand that the school do the right thing and promptly denounce the NOM-Regnerus hoax as constituting sociological malpractice, because the “study” makes no valid sociological comparison between heterosexual and homosexual parents.

Corvino should be standing up and demanding that those Rick Perry-appointed Regents of the University of Texas respect academic integrity, distance themselves from the NOM-Regnerus hoax, and apologize to the nation’s gay community.

Corinvo’s reputation, after all, is tied at least somewhat to the university’s. If the school lowers its academic standards, the perceived worth of his doctorate declines.

Yet, as somebody tied to NOM’s Maggie Gallagher in the commercial enterprise that is their co-authored book, Corvino can be expected to remain more devoted to the NOM-linked commercial enterprise than to the well-being of the LGBT community nationwide.

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.

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

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

21 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.