(Weekly Column)
There are two things we know about the religious right: They have no faith in science, and they cynically distort science to justify their faith.
The latest example is a new study by University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus (pictured), “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” The research will appear in the July issue of the journal Social Science Research with the data purporting to uncover “numerous, consistent differences, especially between children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents.” The message of this study is that in several categories the children of gay parents are worse off. It is critical to note that this study flies in the face of decades of research that comes to the polar opposite conclusion.
While billed as the “gold standard” of science because of its sample size, upon closer inspection it looks more like fools gold. What stands out and disqualifies this study from serious consideration is that it is an example of what I call “dollarship,” which stands in stark contrast to genuine scholarship. Dollarship is when right wing organizations provide money to produce subpar studies that back their worldview. We have seen such “research” from cigarette manufacturers, the pollution lobby, and certainly the anti-gay industry. Regnerus’ ignoble effort falls into this category with a $695,000 grant from the Witherspoon Institute and a $90,000 grant from the archconservative Bradley Foundation.
Most ominously, Princeton professor Robert P. George is a key member of Witherspoon. George has been affiliated with The Family Research Council and is a founder of the notorious National Organization for Marriage. The chances of a “think tank” tied to George producing a study that shines a positive light on gay parents are about the same as palm trees sprouting in January outside my bedroom window in Burlington, Vt.
The appropriate title of this junk science study would be: “Surprise, right wing extremists don’t like gay parents.”
Aside from the inherent bias, there were glaring methodological flaws. For instance, the study never bothered to answer the question of how children with LGBT parents fare in healthy, stable homes. What it showed is that kids with at least one parent in a same-sex relationship didn’t fare so well in broken homes.
“When I look at his data, my main take-away is that divorce and family transition is not a great outcome for kids,” Gary Gates, a demographer at UCLA, told the New York Times.
In The New Republic, writer John Corvino puts the studies flaws in perspective:
Question: What do the following all have in common?
• A heterosexually married female prostitute who on rare occasion services women
• A long-term gay couple who adopt special-needs children
• A never-married straight male prison inmate who sometimes seeks sexual release with other male inmates
• A woman who comes out of the closet, divorces her husband, and has a same-sex relationship at age 55, after her children are grown
• Ted Haggard, the disgraced evangelical pastor who was caught having drug fueled-trysts with a male prostitute over a period of several years
• A lesbian who conceives via donor insemination and raises several children with her long-term female partner
Give up? The answer—assuming that they all have biological or adopted adult children between the ages of 18 and 39—is that they would all be counted as “Lesbian Mothers” or “Gay Fathers” in Mark Regnerus’s new study.
Researcher Jim Burroway, who wrote an exhaustive critique of the study, puts it this way: “Identifying a parent who has had a same-sex relationship is not the same as identifying a parent who is gay, lesbian or bisexual in a functional relationship.”
Earlier work from Regnerus had also raised suspicions of partiality. For example, one study focused on the costs of “hookup culture” and he promotes the silly belief that “liberty run amok can create extraordinary personal disaster.” While peoples’ decisions can lead to disaster, the problem is never the liberty that allows them to make bad choices. Only one with authoritarian impulses would scapegoat freedom as the root cause for poor judgment.
Legitimate researchers use the scientific method to explore life’s complicated issues. Junk science practitioners use tainted money to manipulate science as a method to promote an agenda. A cursory look at Regnerus’ work tells me that it that needs to be put under a microscope and carefully examined. When one ponders the results, it seems to reveal more about the leanings of the researcher than it does about gay and lesbian parents.
You might have gotten more specific about how the funding for the study was arranged. It came from 1) The Witherspoon Institute; and 2) The Bradley Foundation. NOM’s Robert George is 1) a Senior Fellow at Witherspoon; and 2) a Board member of the Bradley Foundation. Having secured the three-quarters of a million dollars, George obviously also had a say-so in 1) who carried out the “study;” an evangelical, as happens, and, perhaps even more crucially; 2) *how* the study was carried out. What most marks this anti-gay hate, political propaganda as a fraud, is that the funding and direction of the study were politically motivated, against a minority, in an election year. This is right out of the Rove playbook; and there is nothing honorable about it. Good luck getting James Wright, the editor of “Social Science Research,” to tell you the truth about what vetting he did of the study. The same journal, as happens, contains another anti-gay attack, from Brigham Young graduate Loren Marks. Marks was used as an anti-gay witness in a Prop. 8-related case. Under questioning, he was forced to admit that 1) he knew nothing about same-sex couples; 2) he had cherry-picked info out of studies, without reading the studies in their entirety, and; 3) he had theocratic motivations for testifying against gay people’s rights. “Social Science Research,” it must be noted, will sometimes allow study authors to hand-pick the “referees” who review their work for scientific soundness and integrity. Was Regnerus allowed to select the person who reviewed his “study”? Were palms greased in that process? Notice that NOM never explains that George funded the study and had a hand in selecting Regnerus, and in determining the direction of the study. In that same vein, The Deseret News reported on and breathlessly editorialized about the study, without mentioning that 1) Robert George funded it and 2) Robert George is on the Deseret News’s editorial board. In the face of this junk non-science masquerading as something academically credible, the DNC appears not to recognize that the NOMzis, in cahoots with Romney and the Republican establishment, are using this anti-gay crap in malicious ways that come right out of the Karl Rove playbook.
If the author of the study had wanted an honest outcome (a big IF), he would have 1) screened for long-term relationships and not “flings”, and 2) compared how children in unstable GLBT families fared to those in unstable heterosexual families. He didn’t do this, which means that he is either incompetant or dishonest, or both.
Love the term “Dollarship”. It complements Claude Summers’ description of the study as “bad faith pseudo scholarship.” Thanks to Scott Rose above for the info about Social Science Research and Loren Marks. I think the real purpose of the money used to fund this “dollarship” was to get a peer-reviewed article into the legal briefs that will be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that there is sufficient doubt about parenting skills of gay and lesbian parents so that there is at least a “rational” basis for opposing same-sex marriage. This is a really disgraceful misuse of scholarship. I hope this ruins Regnerus’s career.
So, who “peer reviewed” the Regnerus and the Marks studies? Were they perhaps “experts” with pre-determined, theologically-fueled opposition to gay rights and to gay relationships? Were they? I want to know who “peer reviewed” this anti-gay political propaganda. The two gay-bashing studies were carried out with a manifest anti-gay political aim, during an election year, and are now being promoted by an organization whose leader Robert George is connected to all of the most highly-placed figures in the Republican party, as well as to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Who “peer reviewed” these two studies? “Social Science Research” editor James Wright isn’t answering that question for me. Maybe somebody else can pose the question to him: James.Wright@ucf.edu
The modus operandi of the antigay propaganda machine: Distort reputable studies to give the impression they support the antigay positions. Create disreputable studies to come up with conclusions they want, and form fake professional organizations to confirm their conclusions. Use members of the propaganda machine to review and praise the studies. Get on the shows of people who will not challenge them about their studies so they can propagate their propaganda to a wider audience.
This is not a study of gay vs. straight. It is a study of stable vs. non-stable child-rearing environments.
We have known for years that a fractious home (as opposed to a stable household) when young can lead to emotional problems later in life. The only real difference between this other stability vs. non-stability reports, is that this focuses solely on instabilities caused by parents in the 20th century realising or finally accepting that they are gay (something that would never have had to happen if social attitudes to gay people weren’t so appalling back then).
Therefore this study tells us nothing new, and is completely pointless.
Good article Wayne. Maybe it’s time now to grill Regnerus publically and expose the facts for his rebuttal. Piers Anderson or Rachael would dethrone this entire mess in mere minutes, which I suspect is fast coming.
The Huff Post did a good piece on this yesterday uncovering it’s obvious flaws via professionals str8 and gay alike.
Good post. I had to read over the study myself to believe it was as bad as it is. Regnerus better hope he continues to receive money from the special interest Right, because I can’t imagine anyone trusting him with serious research after this mess.
Apparently, its OK to lie about people as long as
G-d hates them as long as you are a straight white protestant man, which we all know is who G-d prefers!
David, Darren, Peter, Jay Scott, John, everyone, if you would, PLEASE hold your noses and go read the article of this heinous “Study” on the blog of Denny Burke, June 11 posting.
Most of us have never heard of him, but he is a dean at the ‘college’ part of The Southern Baptists flagship seminary. Even his title for the article “Explosive Study…” is obnoxious.
Search (hold your noses) for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Go to the site, and look for Denny Burk on the Blog section.
He allows posts, but can’t stomach it when someone points out the obvious, like the fact that the people who paid for this colored its outcome, and does not have the stomach to have his bias and bigotry challenged.
The funny part of it is that he is one of those conservative Christians who honestly seems to think he is still in the majority, and often seems mildly stunned that science, the vast majority of the educational establishment, many of the Churches, and the public at large are not in agreement with him. He still, shockingly, thinks HE is the good and moral guy, and not the bigot he is.
Go read the Spin the conservatives put on this. Were it not so sad, and were it not going to be used to hurt our families, it would be funny.
Alas, it’s not.
Gene–
Denny Burk writes, “The study does not focus on stable same-sex couples raising children. This is surely to become a point of contention in discussions about this article. Indeed, you can read Time magazine’s critique along these lines here.
…The problem with social scientific research is that the methodology and the assumptions of the researchers often shape the outcomes. ….I’m ….sure that other studies with different methodologies and different assumptions will come forth to challenge this one.”
How does that differ from your critique?
Because this one, which is b******t, was presented as a quality study.
Because Mr. Burke did not have the balls to mention who paid for it (took me about ten seconds to find several references to that)
Because Mr. Burke called this crappy piece of a study “Explosive” and the overall message of the piece was that gay parents are inferior to heterosexual ones. Oh, he does throw out the sentence you quoted above, but gives this “study” a standing as though it were resepctable, decent and moral research. Not good. Not acceptable, and as it was pointed out above, it says more about the researcher, the people who paid for it, and anyone who would present it as if it had ANY respectability, than it does about any of the reality of life for most Gay families.
It was a hatchet job, pure and simple, paid for by right wing fanatics, and anyone who fails to mention that when posting it on their blog need to be called out on it.
We all know damned well (and they do too) that when affiliate organizations/researchers to the religious anti-gay community does a study, it is a foregone conclusion what it will reveal. The outcome is determined first and any and all incidental/suspect evidence is made to verify that foregone requirement. Years of official and unbiased studies conducted in the most scientific and in-depth manner are not in any way allowed to interfere with the inaccuracies of their predetermined outcome. AND, of course, forget about conflict of interests. It’s done so they can spoon feed the biased results to the dopes who take them at their word because it supports their own set-in-cement biases.
The study is an irrelevance. It is commenting upon the effect on a child of the breakup of a family due to a parent coming out in the 20th century, and the subsequent effects on the development of that young person.
Again, this paper is very culture and date specific, and hopefully this phenomenon is happening less and less as people are increasingly comfortable and accepting of their sexuality from a younger age, and less likely to enter into a heterosexual relationship/marriage in the hope of eventual change.
If anything, the LGBT community should adopt this paper, and use it as concrete evidence of what we have been telling the religious right for eons; When you denigrate and subjugate gay people, and force them either directly or indirectly into entering heterosexual marriage, it will in the majority of cases lead to instability in the home and children with emotional and developmental issues.
Regnerus is FAR from the wizened academic I imagined him. There’s nothing like a little neck-beard to add gravitas to a maru-megane (round eye-glasses) dweeb. Thanks for the pic, Wayne!
—-Mark Miner
Wingnuts always fail when they try to do science. They should just stick to “God sez gay bad”.
Just when you think you can reasonably define the word “desperation”, the religious fundies find a not-so-new and pathetic expression for the frustration they are experiencing in order to continue to, somehow, justify their hate. They are fooling no one.
[...] According to Wayne Besen of the group Truth Wins Out, the head of the study – University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus, received a $695,000 grant from the Witherspoon Institute and a $90,000 grant from the Bradley Foundation. [...]
[...] controversial new junk science study by University of Texas at Austin researcher Mark Regnerus has falsely portrayed gay couples as [...]
List of editors of the publication can be reached at http://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-research/editorial-board/
As a 2nd generation UT degree holder I’d like to state this is an insult to the
Institution . UT (Austin) is known for having high academic standards, and sound peer
This is an insult to those of us who value ethics, and accuracy in Science.
We have a two other traditions at UT which have been insulted by this fallacious piece of bigotry clothed in scientific camouflage :
1.” The Eyes of Texas are Upon You”
2. The clock-tower is inscribed with : ” Know the Truth and It Will Set You Free ” I hope this is investigated thoroughly…
The UT Campus and Austin have historically been very LGBT friendly and I’m hopeful that these places aren’t judged by this one bizarre example of bigotry clothed in Bad Not very Scientific and unethical behaviour on the part of Mr. Regnerus.
So strange, if that’s a picture of Regnerus, is that he just looks gay. So, is this another in the closet let me trash who I really am person? Hmm.
I truly believe that this study is entirely unfounded. Case in point: I work in a country restaurant in Wales, UK. The other day I had a gay couple with two adopted children. The children were quiet well behaved and had excellent manners. In contrast a straight couple with 6 kids came in and they let the children run riot around the pub and were screaming expletives, it was quite shocking. How then, can one justify this study?
[...] Gay Parents Study: Dollarship Disguised as Scholarship [Truth Wins Out] [...]
Thank you very much for these links, TWO! The articles provided a lot of perspective on the flaws of the survey and the actual claims of Mark Regnerus. The best critique, in my opinion, was Jim Burroway’s. The worst was The New Republic’s John Corvino who clearly did not look at the study at all. If I were him, and if I could, I would remove any traces of my article.
[...] they seem to be relying these days on disputed evidence to justify their views. For example, researchers and analysts discounted the methodological flaws present in University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus’ [...]
[...] Wins Out has harshly criticized a sham study on gay parents by University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus. We also launched a [...]
[...] Wins Out has harshly criticized a sham study on gay parents by University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus. We also launched a [...]
[...] Lindquist cites, that of University of Texas Professor Mark Regnerus, has been widely discredited for its flawed methodology, wildly inaccurate conclusions, and allegations of partiality, to name [...]