Connect with us

University Of Texas Professor Behind Controversial Study Wades Further Into Gay-Marriage Debate

Published

on

Docs show sociologist Mark Regnerus was fed talking points assuring his neutrality on marriage debate; recent actions suggest otherwise.

 

“You are a researcher, not an advocate. You are simply reporting on what the data tells us.”

This is the first in a long list of media-training guidelines drafted for sociologist Mark Regnerus in preparation for last year’s release of his findings of the infamous “New Family Structures Study,” a flawed, politically motivated study that suggests that children of gay parents experience more unfavorable outcomes compared to children of heterosexual, married parents.

The guidelines instructed the University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor to focus on the science of his study and to emphasize his apolitical views. Regnerus echoed many of these talking points when his study was first released, taking pains to maintain a neutral front on the gay-marriage debate. He stated in his papers and in interviews that the study was not about gay marriage or even about gay parenting. Regnerus continues to try to appear neutral on these issues in media interviews, recently telling The New York Times’ Bill Keller that, concerning gay marriage, his study “paints the reality of people’s lives as fairly complicated.”

But Regnerus’ more recent actions indicate many of his talking points were simply that: talking points.

Since those early days, Regnerus has signed on to a “friend of the court” brief in both gay-marriage cases recently taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to uphold California’s ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He has blogged about his skepticism regarding the health of kids raised by gay parents, and he’s signed on to speak at a National Organization for Marriage-affiliated conference dedicated to arming college-age kids with research that opposes gay marriage.

‘Points to Avoid’

As The American Independent reported last month, the Witherspoon Institute, the conservative think tank that funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, pushed to have the study’s results out before “major decisions of the Supreme Court,” according to documents obtained through a public records request.

Among those documents – which are still being released in chunks – is a document titled “Mark Regnerus Media Training” (attached below) which encouraged the professor to focus on the fact that his study was a large, random, nationally representative study, unlike the majority of the existing research on gay parenting. He was told to avoid politics.

The origin of this training document, which is undated, is unknown. David Ochsner, director of public affairs at the University of Texas’ College of Liberal Arts, said he did not believe the guidelines were issued by UT, and he said Regnerus told him he could not remember where they came from. Witherspoon Institute President Luis Tellez said they were not issued by the Witherspoon Institute.

Regnerus’ “key points to make” included:

  • This study does not ascribe a cause to the effects, it simply reports the data.
  • For many years, gay advocates have claimed that there are no meaningful differences between children of same-sex couples and other children. This study shows this not to be true.
  • Young adults raised in a same-sex household are [list key findings such as more likely to have considered suicide, etc.].

The training document also listed “points to avoid/hard questions.” Regnerus was encouraged, for example, to avoid stating his opinion of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

But if asked about his own opinion on gay marriage, he was instructed to say:

This study is not about same-sex marriage. It does not attempt to assess the differences between those gay couples who have married and those who have not. It is focused on the differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in an [sic] intact families.

Were he to be asked about whether gay couples should be able to adopt children, Regnerus was instructed to say:

Again, I am a researcher, not an advocate. Our research finds that there are a number of significant differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in intact families where their parents are married to each to her. I have no position on adoption, gay marriage or any other similar issue.

Were he to be asked about the Witherspoon Institute’s politics, Regnerus was told to point out that liberal organizations fund academic studies, and he was instructed to emphasize that “Witherspoon had nothing to do with the study design, or with the data analyses, or interpretations, or the publication of the study,” an oft-repeated statement that has been called into question, given that a Witherspoon fellow was heavily involved in many aspects of the study and – including recommending a journal to publish it in – while also working on the study as a paid consultant employed by the University of Texas.

Some of the same language in these crafted answers appeared in the Q&A with himselfthat Regnerus posted on his blog in June 2012.

Regnerus adhered to some of these guidelines in early interviews.

“I don’t have a political axe to grind,” he said in an interview last summer with UT’s student newspaper The Daily Texan. “I know the funders are conservative. I don’t know what they make of this. … My views have never been a part of this process or affect how I go about analyzing things.”

Aligning with gay-marriage foes

But more and more, Regnerus has waded further into the gay-marriage debate.

Perhaps most tellingly, he joined the slew of activists trying to influence Supreme Court justices with his research, by signing on to a little-noticed  “friend of the court” brief filed in both cases before the court, Hollingsworth v. Perry – challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 – and United States v. Windsor – challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act

The brief, signed by seven social-science professors in support of the legal teams defending Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, argued that “compelling evidence shows that children benefit from the unique parenting contributions of both men and women” and attacked the American Psychological Association’s position that there is “no difference” in outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents versus heterosexual parents, saying that claim is based on studies that are methodically flawed.

Arguing that “there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children,” the brief’s authors concluded that, “The State of California and the federal government thus have a rational interest in supporting that proven parenting structure by reserving the title and status of marriage to unions comprised of a man and a woman.”

Among the many scholarly articles referenced in this brief are both articles Regnerus wrote on the New Family Structures Study for Social Science Research and another article he co-wrote related to the influence of parent-child relationships on teens’ virginity status, published in the Journal of Family Issues in 2006.

The brief addressed the major criticisms hurled at the New Family Structures Study, among them that the study wrongly compared intact heterosexual families to families that experienced breakups and transitions but were classified as same-sex households because a child had reported that at some point his or her parent had experienced a same-sex romantic relationship. The brief’s authors challenged this criticism by suggesting that same-sex relationships are by their nature unstable.

“[T]he fact that most of the same-sex households were at some point unstable raises the question of whether stable same-sex households were genuinely undercounted in the study, or whether same-sex relationships were more short-lived,” the brief’s authors wrote. “The last scenario is possible, if not probable, given other research on the comparative volatility of lesbian relationships.”

Along with Regnerus, the brief was signed by Simon Fraser University economics professor Douglas W. Allen, Penn State University associate sociology professor David J. Eggebeen, Brigham Young University family life professor Alan J. Hawkins, Baylor University social-sciences professor Byron R. Johnson, Ava Maria University assistant economics professor Catherine Pakuluk, and Brigham Young University assistant economics professor Joseph Price.

The sociologists’ brief was directly challenged in an amicus brief filed in late February by the American Sociological Association, Regnerus’ professional organization. In that brief, authors argued that Regnerus’ data did not support his paper’s conclusions and addressed the brief’s attacks on studies that have found no differences among outcomes of children raised by straight parents versus children raised by gay parents.

Just a few days before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the same-sex-marriage cases, Regnerus blogged about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent endorsement of gay marriage, writing that the few population-based studies on gay parenting – presumably including his own – “seem to foster skepticism about moving quickly or universally to deny children their right to a mom and a dad.”

“The science on same-sex parenting remains comparatively new, unable to keep up with political and legal developments,” he wrote. “But those few population-based studies that exist — that map what’s going on across the country — seem to foster skepticism about moving quickly or universally to deny children their right to a mom and a dad. It’s not a popular position, of course. In the end, we all want children to thrive. Many organizations and scholars assert that same-sex marriage is a step toward that end, ensuring household stability. Others remain skeptical, and wonder whether this isn’t more about parents’ wishes than those of children.”

Additionally, Regnerus is listed as one of the featured speakers at the summer’s It Takes a Family to Raise a Village conference in San Diego, sponsored by the Ruth Institute. Former George Mason University economics professor Jennifer Roback Morse founded the Ruth Institute in 2008 and was a prominent supporter of California’s gay marriage ban. Her group, which became affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage in 2009, has frequently been called out by LGBT-rights groups and bloggers for promotinganti-gay rhetoric and so-called “ex-gay” therapy.

Carlos Maza, a researcher at Equality Matters, an LGBT-focused initiative of Media Matters for America, attended last year’s It Takes a Family conference undercover andcaught on tape speakers referencing Regnerus’ study to support attacks on gay people raising children. Jenet Jacob Erickson, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life, was recorded citing the study in support of the claim that same-sex relationships are “dysfunctional and erratic and not stable.”

Regnerus did not respond to requests for comment.

The Ruth Institute and the National Organization for Marriage are among the Witherspoon Institute’s many allied organizations – several of which share founders, board members, and resources – that have helped the New Family Structures Study fulfill its purpose: to challenge the increasingly popular belief among the mainstream social science community that kids raised by gay parents turn out fine. At least from the Witherspoon Institute’s perspective, the study’s ultimate purpose was to provide the court with evidence that banning gay marriage is in the public’s interest, based on the reasoning that heterosexual family structures are superior.

Already, the study has had this effect, at least for one justice on the Supreme Court.

Arguing before the court in defense of California’s gay-marriage ban, attorney Charles Cooper appeared to be struggling to come up with reasons why gay marriage harms or denigrates “traditional opposite-sex marriage couples.” Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his politically conservative views, interjected – bringing up kids, and sociology.

“Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing,” Scalia said. “I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s -­ there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason. … I don’t think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it – whether it harms or helps the child?”

“No, Your Honor. And there’s – there’s –” Cooper responded.

“But that’s a possible deleterious effect, isn’t it?” Scalia said. He later added, “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it is certainly true that — that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”

Cooper did not directly answer the question, but he agreed with Scalia’s point – and argued that the plaintiffs have to prove that gay marriage will cause no harm to straight married couples. Not only that, but he said plaintiffs have to prove that “that it’s beyond debate that there will be no harm.”

On the same day the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Proposition 8 case, gay-marriage foes gathered at the National Mall for a rally organized by the National Organization of Marriage. Organizers passed out brochures titled “What You Need to Know about Marriage: Questions & Answers Driving the Debate.” In addition to NOM, the brochure’s listed sponsors included the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the Heritage Foundation, all social conservative groups based in Washington, D.C.

The first “consequence[] of redefining marriage” listed in the brochure is that, “Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science – including very recent and robust studies – show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.”

The endnotes cited Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study findings to support this claim.

 

Mark Regnerus Media Training

http://www.scribd.com/embeds/134277941/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll

 

Image: Gay-marriage friends and foes gather in front of U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in the U.S. v. Windsor, surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act, March 27, 2013 (THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT/Sofia Resnick).

 

This article originally appeared at The American Independent and is republished here by permission, and with deep gratitude.

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.

OPINION

Ronna McDaniel Is Just a ‘Normal’ Person Who ‘Never Denied the Election’ Says Hugh Hewitt

Published

on

Right-wing talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt is facing backlash after declaring former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, who was ousted after her hiring cost NBC News a tumultuous five days, a “normal” person who has “never denied the election.”

Last summer, The Washington Post‘s Philip Bump reported McDaniel “is still elevating 2020 election skepticism,” and “won’t say the election was fair.”

“I don’t think he won it fair. I don’t. I’m not going to say that,” McDaniel had said to CNN.

“CNN teased an upcoming interview between host Chris Wallace and Ronna McDaniel,” Bump wrote. “In the clip, Wallace asks McDaniel when she stopped being an ‘election denier’ — that is, someone who espouses skepticism about the validity of the election results. And, surprise! McDaniel never stopped.”

Bump also explained the danger in election denialism: “McDaniel won’t say Biden was legitimately elected because the base doesn’t want to hear it — but the base doesn’t want to hear it in part because leaders such as McDaniel won’t simply admit without qualifications that Biden won.”

READ MORE: Comer Refuses to Investigate Trump Family Member Over ‘Influence Peddling’ Allegation

“Establishing a system in which any loss can easily be framed as illegitimate means establishing a system in which no loss is accepted as valid,” Bump continued. “It means institutionalizing the idea that elections are inaccurate gauges of public opinion and, therefore, that the winners of those elections have no mandate to serve.”

On Wednesday Hewitt, a Washington Post columnist and former Reagan White House aide, said on Fox News that McDaniel “is a fine Republican. She is not an election denier. She has never denied the election.”

Former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh responded to that clip.

Bullshit Hugh. With Trump, she pressured MI canvassers to not certify the results; with Trump, she pressured other state attorney’s to sue & invalidate results in MI, PA, & WI; she worked with Trump on the fake electors scheme; she lied about charges of voter fraud well after those charges had been debunked. No major party chair in American history has done more to dispute a legit election. Shame on you,” Walsh wrote.

Media Matters’ Eric Kleefeld, also responding to that clip: “Somebody who helped coordinate fake electors and passed a resolution calling Jan. 6 ‘legitimate political discourse’ is not normal, and we must at all steps refuse to treat them as such.”

READ MORE: Greene Says She Won’t Take Responsibility if Johnson Loses Speaker’s Gavel Before Election

Hewitt had also told Fox News, “I don’t know who is going to keep MSNBC informed of what normal people think, because Ronna McDaniel is about as normal as they come. She’s a Michigan mom, she’s been in the job seven years. She represents the Republican Party.”

McDaniel, it could be said, does not represent the Republican Party, not the MAGA America First Republican Party of today, neither literally nor figuratively. Donald Trump engineered her ouster and installed his handpicked replacements, including his daughter-in-law and Michael Whatley, a right-wing attorney who was part of the Bush recount team during the contested 2000 presidential election.

The Atlantic’s Norman Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), blasted Hewitt, calling him “an utter disgrace,” while adding, “shame on those like the Washington Post who showcase him.”

Adam Cohen, vice chair of Lawyers for Good Government, pointedly responded to Hewitt: “Hate to tell you this, but normal people don’t try to foment a coup, or deny the truth about election results Like Ronna McDaniel did.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Campaign Says It Will Deploy ‘Soldiers’ to Polling Places

Continue Reading

News

Comer Refuses to Investigate Trump Family Member Over ‘Influence Peddling’ Allegation

Published

on

Last year House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer acknowledged former President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House advisor Jared Kushner had “crossed the line” when he accepted $2 billion in foreign investment funds from the government of Saudi Arabia as he started up a private investment firm just months after leaving the White House.

Now, Chairman Comer says he will not open an investigation into any possible wrongdoing, Huffpost reports, despite top Democrats alleging Kushner engaged in “apparent influence peddling and quid pro quo deals.”

On Tuesday, the top Democrat on Comer’s Oversight Committee, Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, and Democrat Robert Garcia, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs, formally requested Comer “convene a hearing regarding Jared Kushner’s apparent influence peddling and quid pro quo deals involving investments in exchange for official actions and to examine the resulting threats to our national security.”

“This Committee cannot claim to be ‘investigating foreign nationals’ attempts to target and coerce high-ranking U.S. officials’ family members by providing money or other benefits in exchange for certain actions while continuing to ignore these matters,” Raskin and Garcia wrote. “We therefore urge you to work with us to finally investigate Mr. Kushner’s receipt of billions of dollars from foreign governments in deals that appear to be quid pro quos for actions he undertook as senior White House adviser in Donald Trump’s Administration.”

READ MORE: Greene Says She Won’t Take Responsibility if Johnson Loses Speaker’s Gavel Before Election

The American people are deeply concerned about these business dealings and Mr. Kushner’s apparent influence peddling. We must address
those concerns with a fair, impartial, and public process to understand the truth and to institute meaningful reforms to safeguard public confidence in our executive branch.”

The two Democrats in their letter say their “request comes in light of allegations that Jared Kushner is pursuing new foreign business deals, just as Donald Trump becomes the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency. Last year, well before these new allegations came to light, Chairman Comer had already conceded that Jared Kushner’s conduct ‘crossed the line of ethics’ and promised that the Oversight Committee would ‘have some questions for Trump and some of his family members, including Jared Kushner.'”

Raskin and Garcia paint a picture of “Kushner’s pattern of profiting off of his time in the White House.”

Citing The New York Times (apparently this article), they write, “Jared Kushner was closing in on investments in Albania and Serbia, leveraging relationships he built during his time as a senior adviser in his father-in-law’s White House. Reportedly, Mr. Kushner is considering an investment on the site of the former Yugoslav Ministry of Defense.”

“Mr. Kushner is reportedly being advised by Richard Grenell, another former senior Trump Administration official who served as U.S. Ambassador to Germany and, concomitantly, as ‘special envoy for peace negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo.’ Mr. Grenell reportedly ‘pushed a related plan’ for redevelopment of the same site during his time in the Trump Administration.”

READ MORE: Trump Says He Thinks He’s ‘Allowed’ to Accept Foreign Money to Pay Fines

“In pursuing investment opportunities in Albania, Mr. Grenell and Mr. Kushner have been openly leveraging their relationship with Edi Rama, the Prime Minister of Albania. While Commander-in-Chief, President Trump received unconstitutional payments from Prime Minister Rama and other senior Albanian government officials who spent thousands of dollars at theTrump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., over three separate stays,” Raskin and Garcia write.

They also allege, “Mr. Kushner successfully overruled State Department officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to make President Trump’s first foreign trip as President to Saudi Arabia. Mr. Kushner personally intervened to inflate the value of a U.S.-Saudi arms deal and to finalize the deal President Trump signed, which was worth $110 billion. Mr. Kushner
also provided diplomatic cover and support to the Crown Prince after the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, an American permanent resident and journalist. Mr. Khashoggi’s murder was assessed by American Intelligence to have been approved by the Crown Prince himself.”

Despite their extensive allegations, Chairman Comer is refusing to open an investigation.

“Unlike the Bidens, Jared Kushner has a legitimate business and has a career as a business executive that predates Donald Trump’s political career,” Comer said, as HuffPost reports. “Democrats’ latest letter is part of their playbook to shield President Biden from oversight.”

Continue Reading

News

Greene Says She Won’t Take Responsibility if Johnson Loses Speaker’s Gavel Before Election

Published

on

Despite filing a motion to vacate the chair last week, which could end Mike Johnson’s short term as Speaker, and despite pummeling him in the press, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) says she will take no responsibility if House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries becomes Speaker of the House before the November election.

Appearing on right-wing media Tuesday, the far-right Georgia Republican targeted Speaker Johnson again, telling GOP voters Johnson stabbed them “in the back.”

Johnson “has a duty and responsibility to care for our conference,” Greene told Real America’s Voice. “That means not force us to vote on full-term abortion, funding the trans agenda, DEI funding, 300 million to the Ukraine war, and many other horrific far-left funding wishlist items that the Democrats were thrilled with.”

“He shouldn’t make us vote on that in order to pay our military soldiers. That’s outrageous. It’s also an election year,” she continued, “and that means that Republicans are out trying to get re-elected and he forced our Republican conference, those that voted for this basically walked the plank for him and that is outrageous.”

READ MORE: $500 Per Second: Ronna McDaniel Reportedly Has a Few Expectations

After talking for several minutes about how Johnson “broke” and “violated” the rules by holding votes to keep the government from shutting down, she insisted her attacks are “not personal against Mike Johnson.”

“I filed the motion to vacate basically issuing a pink slip saying you’re going to be fired, we will not tolerate this any longer. And Republican voters all over this country agree with me,” she insisted.

In October, after Kevin McCarthy was ousted by his own party as Speaker of the House, CBS News reported its new polling “shows the American public wants the next Republican speaker to prioritize federal spending cuts, but also work across the aisle with Democrats and stand up against the ‘MAGA’ movement.”

Declaring, “Our conference needs a new Speaker of the House,” Greene insisted her actions have no effect on Republicans, who increasingly are exiting Congress early.

She also insisted that pinning a possible Speaker of the House Hakeem Jeffries on her is merely “twist” and “spin.”

READ MORE: ‘Absurd & Dangerous’: Truth Social Made Donald Trump Billions Today

“This is simple math,” she said. “The more Republicans like Mike Gallagher that resign and leave early, guess what that means we have less Republicans in the House. So every time a Mike Gallagher or Ken Buck leaves that brings our members down and brings us dangerously closer to being in the minority. It’s not Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

“I am not going to be responsible for Hakeem Jeffries being Speaker of the House. I am not going to for a Democrat majority taking over our Republican majority. That lies squarely, squarely on the shoulders of these Republicans that are leaving early because they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to handle the real fight, and the responsibility that comes with leadership at the end of our Republic when our country is nearly destroyed and when our Constitution is being ran through a paper shredder. So no one is going to blame that on me.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.