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 Regnerus (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.”
[Bolding ours]
The judge later adds:
“Regnerus’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. In short, the isolated studies cited by the state defendants do notsupport the argument that children raised by heterosexual couples have better outcomes thanchildren raised by same-sex couples. To the contrary, the overwhelming weight of the scientificevidence supports the “no differences†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 of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this 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. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up ‘to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.’ … Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must 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.