Today’s decision finding Michigan‘s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional is of course both correct and wonderful. But an added bonus is judge Bernard Friedman‘s take on Mark RegnerusÂ (image), author of the much-discredited Regnerus anti-gay parenting “study.”
In his findings, the judge writes:
“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”
The judge later adds:
“Regnerusâ€™s NFSS study also suffered fromanother defect in that it failed to measure the adult outcomes of children who were actuallyraised in same-sex households.Â In short, the isolated studiesÂ cited by the state defendants do notsupport the argument that children raised by heterosexual couples have better outcomes thanchildren raised by same-sex couples.Â To the contrary, the overwhelming weight ofÂ the scientificevidence supports the â€œno differencesâ€ viewpoint.”
In other words, everything we’ve been saying about the Regnerus study is true.
The New Civil Rights Movement is proud to have been at the forefront of debunking the Regnerus study, of connecting the dots, first to NOM founder Robert George, and then to all Mar Regnerus’ funders and of course, to wholly debunking the study, inch by inch.
You can read the more than 75 articles on or about Regnerus, but at this point, why bother? His study is officially and, — now by court decree — thoroughly disemboweled.
Meanwhile, it’s worth reading the judge’s conclusion:
“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people, … state defendants lost sight ofÂ what this case is truly about: people.Â No court record of thisÂ proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek toensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of othersnow being raised by same-sex couples.Â It is the Courtâ€™sÂ fervent hope that these children will grow up ‘to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with otherÂ families in theirÂ community and in their daily lives.’ … Todayâ€™s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoeverÂ finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection mustÂ prevail.”
One final note. Judge Bernard Friedman was appointed to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan. That “activist judge” label is getting old, conservatives.
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.
RNC Chair Asked Nominee for $500,000 in Possible Pay-to-Play Scheme for Ambassadorship: Report
Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel appears to be enmeshed in an possible pay-to-play scheme, asking a nominee for $500,000 after his ambassadorship nomination ran into trouble.
When the confirmation for President Donald Trump’s ambassador to the Bahamas stalled in the Senate, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Rona McDaniel dashed off an email to the nominee, San Diego billionaire Doug Manchester.
“Would you consider putting together $500,000 worth of contributions from your family to ensure we hit our ambitious fundraising goal?” McDaniel wrote in an email, according to CBS News, which reports the email came “as his confirmation in the Senate hung in the balance.”
Manchester, who had donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, replied quickly.
“As you know I am not supposed to do any, but my wife is sending a contribution for $100,000,” he wrote. “Assuming I get voted out of the [Foreign Relations Committee] on Wednesday to the floor we need you to have the majority leader bring it to a majority vote … Once confirmed, I our [sic] family will respond!”
CBS spoke with Manchester, telling him, “You know what this looks like.”
“Well — it looks like it to you. But it’s not the facts,” Manchester responded. “My wife gave out of separate funds and she in fact loves Donald Trump.”
Manchester told CBS it’s just “part of politics.”
“You give and you give and you give and you give some more and more and more,” he said.
He ultimately was forced to withdraw.
This is not the first ambassador nominee who has given huge sums to the RNC or to team Trump. Gordon Sondland, who is at the center of the Ukraine scandal, became Trump’s ambassador to the European Union despite having no experience for the role. He also gave Trump’s inauguration committee $1 million. The New Republic reports many of Trump’s ambassadors are high-dollar donors.
Among them, Kelly Knight Craft, who is now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, “donated $1 million alongside her husband.”
No Way Pence Didn’t Know What Trump Was Up to in Ukraine After Aide’s Revelations: CNN Panel
A CNN panel discussion on testimony given by a top aide to Vice President Mike Pence said her revelations about what she knew about President Donald Trump’s Ukraine dealings can only mean Pence knew and is lying.
Speaking with New Day hosts John Berman and Alisyn Camerota, contributor Kaitlan Collins stated Jennifer Williams’ description of Trump’s Ukraine phone call was expected to set Trump off, which it did when the president raged at her on Sunday as a “Never Trumper.”
“We kind of saw this coming, that they anticipated the president could be frustrated by her testimony,” Collins explained. “Because in the weeks before, when she was going to testify behind closed doors, we saw them distancing themselves from her. Yes, she works in our office, but she’s the State Department employee detailed to our office.”
Collins added Williams, “was on the call with the president. She traveled with Pence when he went to Warsaw to meet with the Ukrainian president.”
“She’s not some low-level staffer,” she continued. “She’s also not an eager witness. No one even realized she was on the call until someone else on the call named her to house investigators, that’s why she was called to testify in the first place.”
Former White House official Joe Lockhart jumped int to say Pence had to know what William had heard during the call.
“I think the other thing about Jennifer Williams, and it’s not getting as much attention, is she does place Vice President Pence in an awkward position,” Lockhart suggested. “He either has to argue he doesn’t read his briefing book, doesn’t listen to his staff, or I was in on this. It’s one or the other. So far he’s escaped scrutiny here, but he was briefed on his way to Warsaw by her and apparently, it was in his briefing book”
Trump’s Alleged ‘Checkup’ at Walter Reed Was ‘Non-Routine and Scheduled Last Minute’: Report
President Donald Trump’s unexpected trip to Walter Reed medical center did not follow “routine” protocols for a presidential medical exam, CNN’s Jeremy Diamond reported on Sunday.
A source familiar with Trump’s visit to the hospital told Diamond that staff was not notified prior to the president’s visit.
President Donald Trump’s visit to Walter Reed on Saturday did not follow the protocol of a routine presidential medical exam, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Medical staff at Walter Reed did not get a staff-wide notice about a presidential visit to the medical center in Bethesda, Maryland, ahead of Trump’s arrival, according to that source.
During normal circumstances, medical center staff would have received instructions about a “VIP” visit ahead of time.
“That did not happen this time, indicating the visit was a non-routine visit and scheduled last minute,” Diamond reported.
A second source also told CNN that the trip to Walter Reed was “abnormal.”
The White House is on record insisting that the visit was part of the president’s annual “routine” physical exam.
- CRIME IN REAL TIME3 days ago
Fox News Anchor: ‘President’s Tweet Ripping’ Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch Added ‘An Article of Impeachment Real-Time’
- COMMENTARY2 days ago
‘She’s in a Cult’: George and Kellyanne Conway Are ‘Increasingly Distant’ and Jared Kushner Wants Her Gone: Report
- CRIME IN REAL TIME3 days ago
Trump Slammed for ‘Criminal Witness Intimidation’ of Ukraine Ambassador in Real Time During Impeachment Hearing Testimony
- THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS3 days ago
‘American Hero’ Marie Yovanovitch Gets Standing Ovation ‘Drowning Out and Effectively Answering’ GOP’s ‘Limp Objections’
- YOU CAN'T DO THAT3 days ago
Trump Defends His Witness Intimidation of Ukraine Ambassador He Fired by Demanding He Have ‘Total’ Freedom of Speech
- GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY3 days ago
Roger Stone Guilty
- RULE OF LAW?3 days ago
Press Secretary Claims Trump Tweet ‘Not Witness Intimidation’ Because It’s ‘Not a Trial’ – But President Says It Is
- News3 days ago
State Dept. Official Testified Sondland Spoke Graphically to Trump Telling Him Zelensky Would Do ‘Anything You Ask’