Skip to main content

The religious right is disputing the report by Politico (using a nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute poll) that young evangelicals are beginning to embrace marriage equality. That poll indicated that just under a majority of young evangelicals under 35 supported marriage equality. Overall, the report indicated that support for marriage equality had more than doubled among evengelicals over the past decade. The religious rights says, "No, because Regnerus." Yes, Mark Regnerus (of the infamous gay parenting study that has been widely criticized) will release results of a new study in September which calls into questions these results reported in the Politico article.

The New Civil Rights Movement describes it this way:

To refute a claim by Politico that evangelical Christians are slowly embracing same-sex marriage, the religious right trots out the author of the most widely excoriated anti-gay parenting study in history: Mark Regnerus.

Of course, actual science -- especially science with which Evangelical leaders disagree -- is anathema to the entrenched religious right.

Enter Russell D. Moore and Andrew Walker, leaders among the southern Baptist convention. In the National Review (Maggie Gallagher's online home,) early this morning, the pair published a defiant refutation of Politico's report.

"A Sexual Revolution for Young Evangelicals? No," the op-ed insists. "Defying the secular culture, churchgoing Christians are sticking to Biblical teaching," they claim.

To prove their point, the Southern Baptists trot out none other than Mark Regnerus, author of the most widely-discredited "study" -- purportedly, but almost totally not -- of gay parents. They also posted a video of Regnerus explaining his most-recent claims.

When Regnerus testified in a federal court case on same-sex marriage the judge in his ruling called Regnerus' testimony before the court, "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."

Moore and Walker in their National Review op-ed, point to "research, to be fully released in September," that was, they say, "introduced in Mark Regnerus’s presentation 'Sex in America: Sociological Trends in American Sexuality,' unveiled at a recent gathering of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s leadership summit. According to Regnerus, when compared with the general population and with their non-observant peers, churchgoing Evangelical Christians are retaining orthodox views on Biblical sexuality, despite the shifts in broader American culture."

polling by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute," which finds "among young evangelicals under age 35, a near majority ... now support same-sex marriage."

Moore and Walker write that Regnerus' research finds "only 11 percent of young Evangelicals actively expressed support for same-sex marriage."

Whose science should we believe?

Indeed, which study should we believe is more accurate? I think I'll go with the polling done by the Public Religion Research Institute.

Speaking of Maggie Gallagher, she has responded (sarcastically) to the recent study out of Australia which indicates that the children of same-sex couples are happier and more well-adjusted/healthy than those of opposite sex couples. Her response follows:
The New York Times and the media are widely reporting the results of a new study of 500 children raised by same-sex couples. Researchers are aghast that such a shoddy piece of work, which is based on a convenience sample of parents who volunteered to be surveyed, and which relies solely on these parents’ reports to determine child well-being, should have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The author is facing a petition and statement signed by hundreds of reputable academics, questioning his moral character and scientific integrity, and the editor of the journal who published such a thing faces similar attacks and enquiries about whether the peer-review process was compromised. Oh wait, the study shows children of same-sex parents do better than the average child, after adjusting for income. Never mind. - Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review.
via JMG and Good As You

And, the Aussie authors of the study have responded to some of their critics (on the right):

In reality, the only objections to the University of Melbourne study appear to be coming from the right, including Gallagher, the Red State blog, and The Christian Post in the U.S., plus some right-wing groups in Australia. Lead investigator Simon Crouch addresses the critics on the blog Research Connect.

On the fact that the study looked at families who volunteered to participate, Crouch writes, “The volunteer sample is the only option” in Australia, which has “no population datasets that capture parent sexual orientation.” He notes, “It is argued that only parents with a vested interest in promoting positive health outcomes will volunteer. While this cannot be discounted as a possibility there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.”

He continues, “There has also been an unfortunate focus on more personal aspects of the research. Some groups have highlighted the fact that I, the lead author on the paper, am a gay man raising children, suggesting that this is a conflict of interest and introduces inappropriate bias.” He points out that the research team has a range of family backgrounds and that “all published papers go through a rigorous peer review process that is blind to such things, assessing work on its methodological merits alone.”

“To suggest that my family situation is of relevance implies that no heterosexual researcher can produce unbiased work on heterosexual families,” he adds. “Or that any non-Caucasian researcher would be able to objectively conduct research on racial discrimination and child health.”

via The Advicate
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site