Skip to main content

Charlie Butchart-Cullen, 3, and her sister Sophia Butchart-Cullen, 1, sit in a wagon at the LA Pride parade in West Hollywood, California, June 10, 2012. The parade is part of the annual Los Angeles lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride celebration
The kids will be all right.
Once again: You have to think that if there were serious, substantive reasons to deny marriage equality that someone, somewhere would be making them. Instead we get things like this:
The state of Michigan’s star witness opposing same-sex marriage acknowledged in court on Tuesday that children of gay couples could turn out just as well as any other kids. [...]

“What we’ve learned is that it’s possible to grow up in same-sex households and the children will be fine,” said [sociologist Mark Regnerus], who acknowledged in court he is a religious conservative. “We won’t know if it’s probable until we test it over time.”

The Regenerus study comes up a lot. It purports to suggest that children of same-sex parents are "disadvantaged," compared to those of heterosexual couples, but suffers from fatal flaw: The study was primarily of broken families to begin with.
The study examined the lives of 248 adults who said their parents had had a same-sex relationship during their childhood and found, he said, that they fared worse academically and behaviorally than children raised in intact homes with heterosexual parents. [...]

Critics said Regnerus’ 248-person study included just two who had been raised from birth to adulthood by gay couples. When asked Monday how those two fared, Regnerus replied, “Pretty good.”

The other 246 were children of heterosexual couples or single parents who later went on to have a homosexual relationship at some point. Thus, the study self-selected for children in "disadvantaged" situations and purported to blame that disadvantage on The Gays.

More on this anti-marriage-equality case below the fold.

Disingenuously, the author and star witness of the case doesn't hold the same concern for any of those other potential "disadvantages," the ones we already know will have an adverse impact on children.

Cooper, a veteran gay rights attorney pivotal in cases that led to invalidating Florida’s ban on gay adoption, asked Regnerus if the state should also ban heterosexual marriage among the poor, the less educated and the remarried, given that those factors are statistically known to harm children.

Regnerus said no regarding the poor and less educated, but said he didn’t have an opinion about heterosexual remarriage.

“You don’t have an opinion whether prior divorced people should be allowed to get married?” Cooper asked.

“It exists,” he said. “I don’t think much about that … I think it would be nice if (couples) can work it out.”

"I don't think much about that," said the author of the study testifying as to whether we ought to be banning all marriage between gay Americans for being Insufficiently Ideal To The Theoretical Children, when asked whether we should be banning all marriage in all other situations that have been proven time and time again to be Insufficiently Ideal To The Theoretical Children. Well, I suppose we can't attack him for not having an open mind about these things.
Regnerus found himself under attack from outside the courtroom too. Christine Williams, head of the sociology department at UT-Austin, issued a statement late Monday distancing the department from his findings. [...]

When Regnerus took the stand Monday, he spent much of his time answering criticisms of his work. Outcry over the quality of his study prompted Social Science Research to conduct an unusual postpublication audit of his work. That audit resulted in a report by one of the journal’s editors, sociologist Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University, asserting Regnerus’ piece shouldn’t have been published.

Here's the thing. It's not necessary to argue that Regnerus, an opponent of marriage equality himself, bent the study towards the desired outcome. It's perfectly sufficient to note that it was an objectively flawed methodology, one that does not match with the results of more careful, targeted research, and that even the expert-witness author is quite willing to admit it doesn't provide much proof of anything. But this is what we get—what we always get—when marriage equality opponents go to make their legal case. We get "studies" that the rest of the scientific community has panned, or arguments that marriage equality is like being being a white supremacist because you're harming good Christian folks who have convictions about these things, or arguments that if we deny marriage equality the homosexual folks will go out and have more babies like God intended.

When the anti-equality movement finally makes it into a courtroom, the resulting legal arguments are always silly and contrived. You've got to believe they're doing the best they can, and have been mustering every resource that the entire anti-equality movement can possibly muster, and the best they can do still makes them look grasping and foolish.

Originally posted to Hunter on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:46 AM PST.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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