Videos
DATE
Oct. 23, 2013
DESCRIPTION
Informational session briefing Hawaii House of Representatives, hosted by Hawaii state Reps. Bob McDermott and Gene Ward. Mark Regnerus speaks at 01:32:00.
DATE
Oct. 23, 2013
DESCRIPTION
New Mexico Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage, part 8. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell cites Mark Regnerus around 00:03:53.
DATE
Oct. 21, 2013
DESCRIPTION
The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer misrepresents and promotes Mark Regnerus’ study as “proof” that same-sex parenting is bad for children.
DATE
August 12, 2013
DESCRIPTION
A panel at the American Sociological Association 2013 Annual Meeting organized and moderated by University of Oregon sociology professor C.J. Pascoe, during which sociologists criticized the findings and methodology of Mark Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study.
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
DATE
March 16, 2013
DESCRIPTION
Family First cites Regnerus’ study during Nebraska hearing on same-sex adoption law.
DATE
Feb. 27, 2013
DESCRIPTION
Minnesota lawmakers debate same-sex marriage bill. Minnesota Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe) cited Regnerus’ study at 00:53:30:
DATE
Oct. 14, 2012
DESCRIPTION
University of Southern California associate sociology professor interviews University of Maryland sociology professor Philip Cohen on Regnerus’ study.
DATE
Sept. 26, 2012
Description
Southern Illinois University sociology professor Darren Sherkat lectured before the California State University – Fresno on the flaws of the peer-review process involving Mark Regnerus’ paper on the New Family Structures Study.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
DATE
Sept. 18, 2012
DESCRIPTION
John Corvino, an openly gay philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, Mich., who has frequently debated opponents of same-sex marriage, discusses the flaws of Regnerus’ study.
DATE
Sept. 13, 2012
DESCRIPTION
Mark Regnerus talks to the University of Texas at Austin’s student newspaper The Daily Texan about the New Family Structures Study.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the New Family Structures Study?
The New Family Structures Study is a large-scale, U.S. population-based study on the outcomes of young adults raised in various family structures, commissioned in 2010 by a social-conservative think tank called the Witherspoon Institute. The study’s intended goal – detailed in grant proposals, internal emails, and fundraising letters – was to debunk the widely accepted claim, bolstered by multiple sociology studies, that children do fine when raised by same-sex parents. The study has been criticized for its flawed methodology (it essentially compared apples and oranges, drawing up results suggesting that children of gay and lesbian parents do poorly); its suspect peer-review and publication process; and the involvement of the study’s ideologically motivated funders – an involvement that was initially concealed. Meanwhile, the study continues to be used as a political weapon against marriage and adoption rights for LGBT people all over the world.
2. Who conducted the study?
Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, was the principal investigator of the New Family Structures Study. The Witherspoon Institute recruited Regnerus to head up the study.
3. How was the study conducted?
The New Family Structures Study team hired the research firm Knowledge Networks (now part of the GfK Group) to collect the data. Researchers screened approximately 15,000 current and former members of Knowledge Network’s KnowledgePanel and ended up surveying 2,988 young adults ages 18 to 39, using a probability-based Web panel designed to be representative of the United States. The intent of the study was to examine the outcomes of respondents who grew up in certain family structures and compare them to those who grew up in families where the respondent’s biological mother and father were married throughout the respondent’s childhood – what principal investigator Mark Regnerus termed the “intact biological family.”
Regnerus divided these family types into eight sample groups: (1) intact biological families; (2) families where the mother had a “same-sex romantic relationship” (something Regnerus never defined) at some point during the respondent’s childhood; (3) families where the father had a “same-sex romantic relationship” at some point during the respondent’s childhood; (4) families where the respondent was adopted at birth or before age 2; (5) families where the parents divorced later or had joint custody; (6) families where respondents were raised by one biological parent and that parent’s spouse; (7) families where respondents were raised by a single parent; and (8) “all others.” (Note: The survey did not ask respondents who said their biological parents had been married for their entire childhoods if one of their parents had ever had a “same-sex romantic relationship” throughout their childhood. It simply assumed these married couples were monogamous.)
Of the approximately 3,000 people surveyed, researchers only identified 163 respondents who said their mothers had a same-sex relationship sometime during their childhood and 73 whose fathers said they had a same-sex relationship during their childhood. However, only two of these 236 young adults who said one of their parents had a same-sex relationship were raised by a same-sex couple for their entire childhoods. And only a small percentage said they had been raised by a same-sex couple for more than a few years. Regnerus lumped all of these respondents together, regardless of how long they lived with the supposed gay or lesbian parent or how long they lived with the gay parent and that parent’s partner.
All of the respondents were asked a series of questions in the form of an online survey to determine how the sample groups collectively fared among a series of social, emotional, behavioral, and economic outcomes, such as marital status, employment status, income level, criminal history, sexual orientation, suicidal tendencies, experience with sexual abuse, experience with drug and alcohol abuse, and overall happiness .
4. What did the study say?
The initial findings of the New Family Structures Study, which were published in the July 2012 issue of the peer-review journal Social Science Research, suggested that Regnerus’ thesis – and that of his funders – had been correct. Regnerus said he found that children of “lesbian mothers” (those mothers who reportedly had a same-sex relationship at some point) had negative outcomes in 24 of the 40 categories measured compared to children of married heterosexual couples. He said he found that children of “gay fathers” (those fathers who reportedly had a same-sex relationship at some point) had negative outcomes in 19 of the 40 categories.
“While the NFSS may best capture what might be called an ‘earlier generation’ of children of same-sex parents, and includes among them many who witnessed a failed heterosexual union, the basic statistical comparisons between this group and those of others, especially biologically-intact, mother/father families, suggests that notable differences on many outcomes do in fact exist,” Regnerus wrote. “This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far more narrow samples than this one.”
But Regnerus’ stated findings were incredibly misleading. Regnerus did not compare children raised by stably coupled same-sex parents with children raised by stably coupled opposite-sex parents. Remember, he only found two respondents who said they were raised by two lesbian parents for their entire childhoods, but he lumped these respondents in with all of the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship. Thus, his conclusion that he had debunked the “no differences” theory is not supported by the data he analyzed. Instead, Regnerus had effectively measured children raised in stable household to children whose households were characterized by instability. Many critics of this study, including Regnerus’ professional organization, the American Sociological Association, have pointed out that the negative outcomes were predictable rather than revelatory.
5. Who paid for the study?
The Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank based in Princeton, N.J., funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, to the tune of nearly $700,000. Initially, the Witherspoon Institute, which has been advocating against same-sex marriage for years, gave Regnerus a $55,000 planning grant and followed it up with a $640,000 grant. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a conservative grant-making institution in Milwaukee, Wis., granted Regnerus $90,000 for the study, at the Witherspoon Institute’s request. Both organizations have ties to the major religious right policy groups in the U.S. that continually battle same-sex marriage efforts and LGBT-rights issues.
From the beginning, Regnerus and the Witherspoon Institute have said the funders had nothing to do with how the study was designed or implemented. In his initial article on his findings, Regnerus wrote: “The NFSS was supported in part by grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. While both of these are commonly known for their support of conservative causes—just as other private foundations are known for supporting more liberal causes—the funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretations of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.”
But it turns out that a former Witherspoon Institute fellow who directed the program that conceptualized the New Family Structures Study and actually recruited Regnerus to lead the study worked on the study as a paid consultant. W. Bradford Wilcox was still a fellow with the Witherspoon Institute for much of the time he was working with Regnerus. And internal communications show that he played a key advisory role.
6. Why is the New Family Structures Study controversial?
The study is controversial because of its methodological flaws, how it was financed, its clear anti-same-sex-marriage motivations, and the suspiciously fast and sloppy way it was published in a peer review journal.
7. Why is this study being used to fight efforts to legalize same-sex marriage adoption rights for LGBT people?
The president of the Witherspoon Institute, which funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, told Regnerus (before the professor began collecting data) that he wanted the study to be completed in time for Supreme Court decisions regarding same-sex marriage. Immediately after the study was published in June 2012, it has been frequently referenced by social conservative groups, anti-gay activists, lawmakers, and judges in the U.S. and around the world to argue that same-sex marriage should be banned. The argument tends to be that if children are known to be negatively impacted if raised by same-sex parents – as Regnerus study claims – the government should discourage such families by banning same-sex marriage. Many American judges, Supreme Court justices, and LGBT advocates have dismissed the very premise of this argument – arguing that potential parenting outcomes should not be a factor in the marriage-equality question – regardless of the fact that the study bolstering it is flawed.
8. Who has spoken out against this study?
Many journalists criticized Regnerus’s study when it was first published – journalists from mainstream, liberal, and conservative publications. For example, while The Weekly Standard ran a cover story depicting the heavy criticism against Regnerus’ study as a witch hunt, senior editor Andrew Ferguson still criticized the study for its sampling weaknesses and acknowledged that the study has been misrepresented by allies to the Witherspoon Institute. Criticisms from the sociology community have similarly abounded. Shortly after the study was published, Gary J. Gates, a distinguished scholar at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute, organized an open letter signed by more than 200 researchers, excoriating Regnerus’ paper and asking that Social Science Research invite scholars with an expertise in LGBT family research to submit a detailed critique of the paper in the subsequent issue of Social Science Research. In the fall, Laurie Essig, an associate professor of sociology and women’s and gender studies at Middlebury College in Vermont launched a Facebook group called Sociology for the Public Good and organized about 80 sociologists to demand that Social Science Research retract the study. Both the American Sociological Association and the American Psychological Association have condemned Regnerus’ study for its flaws.
9. Who has defended this study?
The major religious right groups in the U.S. – many of which are have ties to the Witherspoon Institute – immediately promoted and defended the study, including the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, NOM’s Ruth Institute, the Liberty Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, and, of course, the Witherspoon Institute. On June 20, 2012, 18 social scientists posted a defense of Regnerus’ study at the website for Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion. That list has since grown to 27 and includes socially conservative scholars, including some who worked on the study or wrote positive critiques alongside it in Social Science Research.
10. What has Mark Regnerus said about this study in response to criticism?
Right after his study was published, Regnerus defended his research and claimed he had no position on same-sex marriage or LGBT parenting. Since then, Regnerus has spoken out against legalizing same-sex marriage, citing his own study to bolster his argument. Since then, he has admitted – but defended – the methodological flaws of his study, arguing he did compare apples to oranges but only because it sex-sex relationships are inherently unstable, implying it would be impossible to find enough stably couples same-sex couple parents.
Testifying last month at an information briefing panel on Hawaii’s proposed marriage-equality law, Regnerus said it was true that he studied “children who grew up in stably coupled married households versus kids who grew up in unstable households,” and that in reality he only found about a dozen out of 248 children raised by a parent who had a “same-sex romantic relationship” who lived with their mother and mother’s lesbian partner for at least 10 years. He blamed this discrepancy, however, on the fact that it was difficult to find stably coupled same-sex families – not on his methodology.
Regnerus has repeatedly said he takes no responsibility for how groups and lawmakers have attempted to use his study to influence public policy related to same-sex marriage and adoption. Recently, however, Regnerus condemned the use of his study in Russia to propose a law to take children away from their same-sex parents.
11. Why does the New Family Structures Study still matter?
Lawmakers, attorneys, and interest groups continue to cite this study – often misrepresenting its actual results. In several cases, perhaps the most harmful in Russia, decision-makers appear to be buying the argument.
Documents
New Family Structures Study Docs Obtained Through Public Records Requests
DOCUMENT: Witherspoon Institute fundraising letter to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
DATE: April 5, 2011
Witherspoon Letter to Bradley Foundation
DOCUMENT: Email demonstrating W. Bradford Wilcox’s involved role in the New Family Structures Study
DATE: Various, 2010-2011
Wilcox's involvement, in emails
DOCUMENT: Communications between Mark Regnerus and Paul Amato
DATE: Various, 2010-2012
Communications between Mark Regnerus and Paul Amato.pdf
DOCUMENT: Communications between Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox
DATE: Various, 2011-2012
Communications between Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox.pdf
DOCUMENT: Paid-consultant invoices for Paul Amato and W. Bradford WIlcox
DATE: Various
Paid Consultant Invoices for Paul Amato and W. Bradford WIlcox.pdf
DOCUMENT: John Becker’s records request of Darren Sherkat's request from the University of Texas at Austin
DATE: March 13, 2013
John Becker records request w UT of Darren Sherkat's request_ March 13 2013.pdf
DOCUMENT: Talking points generated for Mark Regnerus on his findings of the New Family Structures Study
DATE: Undated
Mark Regnerus Media Training by Sofia Resnick
DOCUMENT: Responsive Documents, Set 1
DATE: Various
DOCUMENT: Responsive Documents, Set 2
DATE: Various
DOCUMENT: Responsive Documents, Set 4
DATE: Various
New Family Structures Study docs Round 4 (redacted)
DOCUMENT: Responsive Documents, Set 5
DATE: Various
New Family Structures Study docs Round 5 (redacted)
Miscellaneous Documents
DOCUMENT: Mark Regnerus’ résumé; shows grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation to fund the New Family Structures Study
DATE: January 2013
DOCUMENT: University of Texas report on inquiry into Mark Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study
DATE: Aug. 24, 2012
UT Austin Regnerus Inquiry Report.pdf
DOCUMENT: Paul Amato’s comments on his participation in New Family Structures Study
DATE: Published online July 20, 2013
Paul Amato comments on the Regnerus study.pdf
DOCUMENT: Witherspoon Institute document calling for a study similar to the New Family Structures Study, titled, “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles”
DATE: August 2008
DOCUMENT: PowerPoint of Darren Sherkat’s lecture on the publication of Mark Regnerus’ study at California State University - Fresno
DATE: Sept. 26, 2012
DOCUMENT: Regnerus' Testimony in Michigan Marriage Equality Trial, Deboer, et al vs. Snyder, et al. Reformatted.
DATE: Jan. 8, 2014
Michigan Trial Regnerus Deposition Reformatted by SexualMinorityResear
DOCUMENT: Doc 91 - Amicus Brief of Social Science Professors Regnerus, et al., in support of Defendants
DATE: May 12, 2014
DOCUMENT: Marc Musick's Review of Methodological and Ethical Issues Surrounding the New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas at Austin
DATE: June 9, 2014
DOCUMENT: Mark Regnerus' Response to Musick's Review
DATE: November 13, 2014
DOCUMENT: Dean Randy L. Diehl's letter on the College of Liberal Arts Comprehensive Review Committee at the University of Texas at Austin
DATE: March 3, 2015
History of Events
The Impact
Jump to a section:
Domestic legislation
Hawaii | Illinois | Congress | Colorado | Maryland | Minnesota | Rhode Island
Domestic Legal
DeBoer v. Snyder | Jackson v. Abercrombie | Griego v. Oliver | Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management | Hollingsworth v. Perry | United States v. Windsor
International Legislative
Canada | Croatia | England and Wales | France | Poland | Russia
DOMESTIC LEGISLATIVE
Many of the recent state-based proposed laws granting marriage or adoption rights for same-sex couples have passed, despite references to Mark Regnerus’ “New Family Structures Study.” But Regnerus’ study is continually being cited in new and pending bills. We have cited several new, as well as older, references to Regnerus’ study and will continue to document how Regnerus and others are using his study to fight against LGBT equality nationwide.
NEW AND PENDING LEGISLATION
Hawaii—Mark Regnerus’ study has had significant influence in the Aloha State in the last two years. Recently, the University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor used his own flawed research to speak out against a state bill to legalize same-sex marriage. On Oct. 23, Regnerus testified against the bill before an “information briefing panel” organized by Republican state Reps. Gene Ward and Bob McDermott. The panel included five men – none from Hawaii – described as “experts in the field,” who led a three-and-a half-hour fear-mongering discussion. They claimed that legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii might lead to educators teaching second-graders how to have anal sex; could impact the recognition of Hawaiian marriages; and of course, and would jeopardize children. Watch the taped panel session here; Regnerus’ statement begins at around 01:32:00.
The thrust of Regnerus’ well-received speech was that – based on research, his own and others– same-sex relationships are inherently unstable, which is bad for children. He also said children have a right to have a mother and a father. “It seems like a modest request – a mom and a dad,” Regnerus said. “It used to happen pretty naturally. We didn’t have to think about it or legislate toward that end. That’s because marriage has long served as the legal means by which children are united to their biological mothers and fathers and thus poised for optimal development.”
Regnerus acknowledged one of the main critiques of his research; he admitted that his study compared “children who grew up in stably coupled married households versus kids who grew up in unstable households,” and that in reality he only found about a dozen out of 248 children raised by a parent who had a “same-sex romantic relationship” who lived with their mother and mother’s lesbian partner for at least 10 years. But he only made mention of this after declaring, “Those young adults who reported living with her mother and her same-sex partner were more apt to have experienced a host of maladies as youth and then as young adults, when compared with young-adult children of still-married mothers and fathers” and launching into a long list of frightening outcomes. He did not clarify that this statement included all of the kids who lived with a mother and her lesbian partner for any amount of time, not just the dozen who lived with their mother and her partner for at least 10 years.
During the question-and-answer portion, Republican Rep. Richard Lee Fale said in his District 47 (which covers Waialua, Haleiwa, Pupukea, Kahuku, Laie, Hauula, Waiahole, Sunset Beach, Punaluu, and Kaaawa), 79.3 percent of the kids live in poverty. He then asked Regnerus which type of relationship should he want to “promote and enhance” in order to lift the children of his community out of poverty. “The mother-father married relationship,” Regnerus replied. “Because they have the most at stake and they’re the least likely to leave a child, least likely to abuse a child.”
Illinois—The Ruth Institute’s Jennifer Roback Morse referenced Mark Regnerus’ study when she testified in February before the Illinois House Executive Committee in opposition to a bill to legalize same-sex marriage which has not, to date, passed.
Nebraska—During a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing concerning Legislative Bill 380, introduced early this year to amend state adoption laws to allow two unmarried adults to adopt – effectively allowing same-sex couples to adopt children – the head of a social conservative group in Nebraska cited Regnerus’ study in opposition to the bill. Dave Bydalek, policy director of the Nebraska Family Alliance (at the time of the hearing, Bydalek was executive director of Family First, which has since merged with the Nebraska Family Council), said Regnerus’ study showed that being raised in families where a parent had same-sex relationship was associated with negative outcomes for kids. In response, Democratic state Sen. Brad Ashford, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Regnerus’ study was not relevant to the debate. The bill has not moved forward since that hearing.
Congress—Tony Perkins, president of the influential religious right group the Family Research Council, who is reportedly considering a run for Congress in 2014, cited Mark Regnerus’ paper on the New Family Structures Study to lobby against the bipartisan “Every Child Deserves a Family Act,” which would prohibit organizations that receive federal funding from discriminating against potential foster and adoptive parents based on the “sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status” of the prospective adoptive parent or the child involved. Perkins said Regnerus’ study revealed “the serious risks to being raised in a homosexual home -- not the least of which are poverty, depression, and abuse.” The adoption bill is still pending in Congress.
ALREADY-PASSED LEGISLATION
Colorado—Mark Regnerus’ paper on the New Family Structures Study was cited in opposition to a state bill to authorize any two unmarried adults – regardless of gender – to enter into a civil union, thereby giving same-sex couples rights similar to married couples. State Sen. Pat Steadman’s “Colorado Civil Union Act” was signed into law in March 2013 after failed attempts two years in a row. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January, Cecelia O’Connor, who was representing herself and had testified against the civil unions bill in the past, distributed an article written by the Witherspoon Institute on Regnerus’ and Loren Marks’ papers, concluding that “children do best when reared by their married biological mother and father.”
Rewind to May 2012 – about a month before Regnerus’ study was published – Glenn Stanton, of Colorado Springs’ Focus on the Family, testified against the civil unions bill. According to a state legislative summary, Stanton said child well-being was “best achieved through parenting by the child’s mother and father, citing certain statistical evidence and literature.” Stanton did not name Regnerus’ study – as it had not yet been published – but he certainly knew about it and had consulted Regnerus on it a year earlier. Once it was published, Stanton promoted Regnerus’ paper.
Maryland—The Maryland Marriage Alliance, a group affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage, used Regnerus’ study in political advertisements during a state campaign in 2012 to push a ballot initiative to repeal a marriage equality law passed earlier that year. The campaign failed.
Minnesota—Two years in a row, same-sex-marriage foes in Minnesota – led by the National Organization for Marriage – used Regnerus’ study to argue against marriage equality. In 2012, NOM partner Minnesota for Marriage funded political advertising citing Regnerus’ study when it was pushing a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That amendment was voted down by Minnesotans later that year. This year the state legislature introduced a law to legalize same-sex marriage – which was signed into law on May 14. Lawmakers attempted to use Regnerus’ study to argue against the law. For example, during a news conference over the law in February, state Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe) referenced Regnerus’ study – and misrepresented it – to claim that same-sex marriage is bad for children because children fare better when they have a mom and a dad.
Rhode Island—Susan Yoshihara, senior vice president for research at the social conservative Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, testified on March 21 against a – now adopted – marriage-equality bill before a Rhode Island Senate committee, saying Regnerus’ research had “shattered” any “scholarly basis” for claims that children do fine when raised by “adults engaged in homosexual lifestyles.” Her statement was ruled to be “false” by PolitiFact Rhode Island.
DOMESTIC LEGAL
There are several pending lawsuits across the country involving the question of marriage equality. As these cases develop, whenever any citations to Regnerus’ study occur, we will attempt to update them here.
ONGOING CASES
DeBoer v. Snyder—The plaintiffs in a Michigan district court case challenging the state’s ban on marriage equality are calling for Mark Regnerus to be barred from testifying because of the roundly rejected junk science he peddled in a 2012 report demonizing gay and lesbian parents. In their motion, the plaintiffs cite Regnerus’ “flawed methodology” in his biased research, and point out that hundreds of scholars as well as the American Sociological Association were quick to highlight the study’s glaring flaws and biases. Read their motion.
Jackson v. Abercrombie—Regnerus’ study influenced Hawaii Senior District Judge Alan C. Kay’s ruling upholding a Hawaii law banning same-sex marriage last summer, and ruling against same-sex couples wishing to marry. On Aug. 8, 2012, Kay cited Regnerus’ paper in an opinion that erroneously asserted the study found that “children raised by married biological parents fared better than children raised in same-sex households in a range of significant outcomes.” The case is not over, however. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appeals court granted plaintiffs’ request to extend deadlines while the Hawaii legislature debates a law to legalize same-sex marriage this fall.
Griego v. Oliver—During recent arguments before the New Mexico Supreme Court, which has agreed to clarify the state’s vague marriage law, which neither explicitly forbids nor allows same-sex marriage, an attorney with the Christian law group Alliance Defending Freedom cited Regnerus’ study to argue that children are healthiest when raised by a biological mother and father. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell is representing a group of Republican state lawmakers who filed a brief in the lawsuit, challenging the authority of Doña Ana County to give same-sex couples marriage licenses. (This lawsuit is among several others dealing with same-sex marriage, which have been temporarily halted until the state Supreme Court makes its determination on the law.) Two of the state Supreme Court justices challenged the premise of Campbell’s children argument, arguing that saying married, biological parents are the ideal standard does not necessarily mean same-sex parents are no good and that not all marriages produce children. In response, Campbell said, “If you promote equally a home which doesn’t have a mother and father, then inherently, you’re no longer promoting the biological home as the ideal here in society.”
RESOLVED CASES
Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management—Regnerus’ study was cited in legal briefs in opposition to this lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Groups that used the study to defend the DOMA included. The American College of Pediatricians, a small conservative medical group, referenced the study in an amicus brief at the urging of Christian law group the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been involved representing same-sex-marriage foes in state-based lawsuits involving marriage equality across the country. Additionally, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which was an intervenor-defendant in the case, cited Regnerus’ study in a legal brief filed July 17, 2012, and described the study as one of the rational bases behind DOMA, the idea that children benefit from being raised by their biological mothers and fathers and that government should thus support that outcome. The Golinski case was one of many federal cases involving DOMA being fought by BLAG up until June 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the section of DOMA that precluded the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the case United States v. Windsor. The Supreme Court declined to review the Golinski case, thus upholding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional. In July 2013, the appeals court disposed of the case, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs; that same month, BLAG ceased defending DOMA in all federal lawsuits.
Hollingsworth v. Perry—In December 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case challenging the constitutionality of California’s “Proposition 8” measure banning same marriage, which passed in 2008. As a Supreme Court case, several amicus briefs were entered into the record that cited Regnerus’ study in defense of Proposition 8. Groups that filed these briefs included: the National Association of Evangelicals and other religious groups including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Helen Alvaré (her brief was paid for by the Witherspoon Institute, which funded the bulk of Regnerus’ study), and seven social science professors including Mark Regnerus himself. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying the proponents of California’s gay-marriage ban did not have legal standing to appeal a federal court’s order striking down the ban. Thus, the lower court’s ruling held, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in California.
United States v. Windsor—Before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in December 2012, BLAG had cited the Regnerus study and defended it against criticisms. As a Supreme Court case, several amicus briefs were entered into the record that cited Regnerus’ study in defense of DOMA. Groups that filed these briefs included: Manhattan Declaration, Liberty Counsel, Helen Alvaré (her brief was paid for by the Witherspoon Institute, which funded the bulk of Regnerus’ study), the National Association of Evangelicals and other religious groups including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Beverly LaHaye Institute and the National Legal Foundation, and seven social science professors including Mark Regnerus himself. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA – which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage – was unconstitutional.
INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
Canada —Earlier in the spring, a RE/MAX real-estate agent in Ontario, Canada, distributed anti-LGBT newsletters in his neighborhood citing Regnerus’ study to assert that “traditional family is best for the future of the kids,” according to Yahoo! Canada News. The article was said to have been taken from the Polish weekly newspaper Sieci.
Croatia—In a campaign to put a voter-referendum on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage in Croatia’s constitution, the “In the Name of the Family” initiative cited Regnerus’ study in defense of the proposed ban, according to an article in a Croatian newspaper, Tportal.hr. The article criticized the research and “In the Name of the Family’s” use of it. Croatians will vote on the proposed amendment on Dec. 1, 2013.
England and Wales—When the government of England and Wales was deliberating over legislation to legalize same-sex marriage this summer, an anti-marriage-equality group called Gay Marriage No Thanks took out an advertisement in The Times and created a website citing Regnerus’ researchnbsp;, according to PinkNews. Despite such efforts, this marriage equality legislation passed in July and is expected to go into effect during the spring of 2014.
France—During France’s debate over same-sex marriage – which was signed into law in May 2013 – Regnerus’ study was cited in debates, on blogs, and was also a frequent talking point for the Manif pour Tous (the French anti-marriage equality movement). For example, Maurice Berger, chief of child psychiatry at the Saint-Etienne University Hospital, referenced Regnerus’ study in a panel discussion, saying children fare the best when raised by married biological parents. Berger also brought up the study before a crowd of 15,000 people in Paris during a protest against same-sex marriage in May. According to a website launched by the organization Le Mariage pour tous, which campaigned for the marriage equality law, Regnerus was frequently referenced in opposition to the marriage equality law.
In a unique turn of events, activists based in the U.S. and England joined the front lines of the anti-marriage equality protest movement in France. The National Organization for Marriage was involved in the campaign to fight France’s proposed marriage equality law. Also involved was Robert Oscar Lopez, an English professor who claims he suffered harms in his childhood because he was raised by a lesbian and heralded Regnerus’ study early on. Lopez started the blog English Manif, which targeted French citizens and was dedicated to trashing same-sex marriage. The website referenced Regnerus’ study.
Poland—Regnerus’ study has been used to argue against – now stalled – efforts to establish civil unions for same-sex couples in Poland earlier this year. A series of YouTube videos under the translated heading “Homosexuality-FACTS” advocate against LGBT rights by denigrating homosexuality. One video features a psychologist talking about Regnerus’ study; another video cites Regnerus’ study and references information from the Family Research Council, which has frequently referenced Regnerus’ study in arguments against same-sex marriage.
Russia—The LGBT community in Russia has recently been under a legislative assault, and this attack has fostered a climate where LGBT individuals, especially advocates and youth, are experiencing increased levels of violence and harassment that goes unchecked by law enforcement. Legislation has passed that seems to prohibit even modest gestures of public support for equality. Legislation has also passed that prohibits adoption by gay individuals and foreigners from countries where marriage equality exists. Most recently, legislation allowing courts to take parental custody away from LGBT parents was introduced and withdrawn – but it was only removed so that the bill’s sponsor could tweak the language. These bills have been bolstered, in part, by Mark Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study. According to a Right Wing Watch investigation, Regnerus’ study influenced the authors of Russia’s ban on “homosexual propaganda,” its ban on the adoption of Russian children by gay couples and individuals living in countries that allow marriage equality, and the bill that would have allowed the state to remove children from an LGBT parent or one assumed to be LGBT. This last bill, authored by Russian lawmaker Alexei Zhuravlyov, quoted extensively from Regnerus’ study. During a Russian State Duma committee hearing in June on the proposed same-sex-adoption ban, committee Chair Yelena Mizulina cited Regnerus’ research in her push for the ban, misrepresenting his research as a study of “3,000 people who had been raised in same-sex families,” according to Right Wing Watch. Regnerus’ research was also invoked the same day in Moscow at a roundtable attended by the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown and several far-right French activists.
The Story
In the summer of 2012, a well-respected university and sociology journal together handed the religious right a weapon in the marriage wars, dressed up as academic discourse.
On June 10, 2012, Social Science Research’s website went live with “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” written by University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor Mark Regnerus, and “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological associations’ brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” written by Loren D. Marks, an associate professor in the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.
The intention of Marks’ research review was to slam the American Psychological Association’s position that same-sex parenting is not harmful to children and to take down 30 years of scientific research showing that having gay or lesbian parents does not predispose children for negative sociological outcomes. Marks blasted most of the 59 studies cited by the APA for involving small, convenience sampling (where subjects are selected by the researcher because they are close at hand or otherwise easy to access), – among other criticisms. The problem with these studies, Marks argued, was that most of them were not large, random, or population-based.
The intention of Regnerus’ study – which was funded to the tune of nearly $800,000 by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation – was to present the large, random, population-based study that Marks lamented was missing from the academic literature on same-sex parenting. And to the delight of the religious right community, Regnerus claimed his study found negative outcomes for the children who said one of their parents engaged in a “same-sex romantic relationship” at some point during their childhoods.
Regnerus’ study was billed as a study of family structures, and it did compare the outcomes of children from some family structures, such as those involving intact biological parents, step parents, adoptive parents, and single parents. But the group that was the focus of the study – same-sex families – was not characterized by family structure, but by relationship behavior. Thus, children raised by two always-married biological parents were then compared to children raised in a family where a parent had a same-sex relationship, regardless of the family structure.
Using an outside research group, Regnerus screened more than 15,000 randomly sampled Americans. Of those, he surveyed about 3,000 young adults between the ages 18 and 39, asking how they fared among a series of social, emotional, behavioral, and economic outcomes, such as marital status, employment status, income level, criminal history, sexual orientation, suicidal tendencies, experience with sexual abuse, experience with drug and alcohol abuse, and overall happiness.
Only the respondents who said their biological parents did not remain married throughout their childhoods were asked if their mothers or fathers had ever had a same-sex romantic relationship. If the respondent claimed his or her mother had a same-sex relationship, that mother was termed a “lesbian mother”; if the respondent said his or her father had a same-sex relationship, that father was termed a “gay father.”
In the end, Regnerus came up with 163 “lesbian mothers” and 73 “gay fathers.” However, he found only two cases in which the mom and her partner were together for 18 years. He only found six cases wherein the mom and her partner were together for 10 or more years, 18 cases where the mom and mom and her partner were together for five years. In the majority of the entire sample of “lesbian mothers,” respondents reported living with their mother and their mother’s partner for less than a year or never living with the mother’s partner. Within the “gay fathers” sample, respondents rarely reported living with their father for very long and never living with their father and father’s parent for more than three years.
What bound these supposed products of same-sex families was instability, because regardless of how long they lived with their supposed gay parents, Regnerus threw them all in the same bucket with the common variable of having had a parent who had a same-sex relationship. He compared this bucket to another bucket of kids who grew up with the same mother and father for at least 18 years. That the latter group turned out to have fared better is not surprising considering they enjoyed a life of stability in comparison to the former.
Moreover, all of the young adults in the sample were born between 1971 and 1994, during a time when anti-LGBT animus was the societal norm. Not only was gay marriage illegal in every state, but gay sex was illegal in many states. Many of the “same-sex families” in Regnerus’ study likely resulted from dissolved unions formed by gay and lesbians trying to lead heterosexual lives.
The New Family Structures Study fell under intense scrutiny because of these methodical flaws and because it was financed by two conservative groups with ties to the major anti-marriage-equality movement. (Though Regnerus assured his readers and the press that the study’s funders had no hands in designing or producing the study, it would later be learned this was not the full truth.)
But more disturbing than the study’s misleading results is how the study has been grossly mischaracterized to push an anti-LGBT-rights agenda throughout the world. In same-sex marriage debates around state legislatures and in U.S. courts, lawmakers and social conservative groups have repeatedly misrepresented this study as research on same-sex couple parents compared to two biological parents
The way Regnerus laid out his findings were indeed misleading. Though he was careful to note in his original paper that he studied children whose parents had a same-sex romantic relationship, rather than same-sex couple parents, at several points in the paper Regnerus referenced this group as “the children of same-sex parents,” which to the casual reader indicates two gay dads or two lesbian mothers. Furthermore, at the end of his paper, Regnerus concluded that it his study “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults – on multiple counts and across a variety of domains – when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”
Regnerus has declined to the call out anti-gay-marriage advocates for misinterpreting his research, with the exception of how his study has been used in Russia – where lawmakers have cited it to prohibit gay couples from adopting Russian orphans and to seize children from the gay parents.
And though Regnerus has maintained that his study was driven by data rather than ideology, he has since gone on to testify against same-sex marriage – using his study’s findings – in legislative hearings and in amicus briefs submitted in the federal same-sex marriage cases decided this summer.
Regnerus’ own professional body, the American Sociological Study, has denounced his study for its flaws and its misuse in former and ongoing same-sex-marriage cases.
The Witherspoon’s Plan
In 2010, conception for what would eventually be called the “New Family Structures Study,” was under way. At the time, University of Virginia associate sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox, who had been a fellow with the Princeton, N.J.-based Witherspoon Institute since 2004, was the director of the Witherspoon’s Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy, where the study was conceptualized. The Witherspoon’s tax-exempt form for 2010 noted that one of the biggest accomplishments of this program for that year was “the initiation of the New Family Structure Study.”
Wilcox recruited several scholars to work on the project, including University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus, who was eventually chosen to be the study’s principal investigator, though he had no research background in LGBT family issues.
Wilcox later worked on as a paid consultant on the study – and evidence indicates he likely peer-reviewed the resulting paper in Social Science Research. Thus, Regnerus’ and Witherspoon’s repeated assertions that the study’s funders were not directly involved in the design and implementation of the New Family Structures Study are patently false.
We know now that the study’s funders financed this project with a specific goal in mind: to produce evidence that could be used to argue against same-sex marriage, particularly with the anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually hear cases involving same-sex marriage. Records that were later obtained through public records requests through the University of Texas show that soon after Regnerus joined the New Family Structures Study team, Witherspoon President Luis E. Tellez told Regnerus that he wanted the study to be done rather quickly so that the results could be published before the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on same-sex marriage.
“Naturally we would like to move along as expeditiously as possible but experience suggests we ought not to get hung up with deadlines, do what is right and best, move on it, don’t dilly dolly, etc.,” Tellez wrote in a Sept. 22, 2010, email. “It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court but that is secondary to the need to do this and do it well. I would like you to take ownership and think of how would you want it done, rather than someone like me dictating parameters but of course, here to help.”
In a fundraising letter dated April 5, 2011, to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which ended up granting $90,000 to the New Family Structures Study, Tellez noted the urgency of getting the study published.
“It is 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,” Tellez wrote. “That is what the NFSS is designed to do. Our first goal is to seek the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Nevertheless, we are confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study as long as it is done honestly and well.”
Tellez’s wish was granted. Regnerus’ paper was published in a well-respected sociology journal in June 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up two legal cases involving same-sex-marriage only in December 2012. Starting the day after Regnerus’ study was published on through when the court heard oral arguments in March 2013, conservative groups pushed out amicus briefs citing Regnerus’ study in arguments to ban same-sex marriage and to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act – which at the time denied federal marriage benefits to legally married gay and lesbian couples.
In the end, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the DOMA that barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage and dismissed an appeal over California’s same-sex marriage ban (effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state). And the high court did not consider citations of the New Family Structures Study in its written argument, though Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia briefly alluded to “considerable disagreement among … sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not” during oral arguments in the California case.
And yet, the damage caused by Regnerus’ flawed, misleading study carries on. To read more about the negative impacts Regnerus’ study has had on the LGBT community worldwide, click here.
The road to Mark Regnerus’ paper began years earlier, when religious right intellectuals began plotting how to use academic research to make a legal case against same- sex marriage. Academic research was needed because it was becoming increasingly difficult to make non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage that an average judge would buy.
It was a series of meetings among social-conservative scholars that led to the publication of an influential short book titled, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, published in 2008 by the Witherspoon Institute and signed by and many of the leaders of the movement to fight same-sex marriage in America, including Robert P. George, who co-founded the Witherspoon Institute and National Organization for Marriage, and Jennifer Roback Morse, who founded NOM’s Ruth Institute. On the issue of same-sex marriage, the Ten Principles predicted that future academic research would show that “children reared by same-sex parents will experience greater difficulties with their identity, sexuality, attachments to kin, and marital prospects as adults, among other things.” But at the time there was no legitimate scientific research proving this point.
The Witherspoon Institute attempted to prove this hypothesis in the study it financed a few years later, and though Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study did not really study children raised by intact same-sex couple parents, Witherspoon and its allies have promoted the study as if that were the case.
Before Regnerus study was published, it was the Ten Principles that was frequently cited in court cases and legislative hearings to oppose same-sex marriage. But the claims against same-sex marriage in this old Witherspoon book were not based on scientific fact; whereas, Regnerus’ paper is billed as legitimate scientific research and is thus a more powerful tool.
Compromised Peer Review
Questions remain as to how and why such a flawed study was published in a respected sociology journal at breakneck pace, but we do have some answers.
Regnerus submitted his study for review in February 2012. He told the Social Science Research Editor James D. Wright he was looking for a speedy review in order to beat a report from the funders detailing the study’s results. At Wright’s request, Regnerus submitted a list of potential reviewers, which is commonplace at many sociology journals. Wright, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida, then went to scholars and asked for a two- to three-week turnaround, which is largely unheard of in the world of scholarly peer review; because scholars are often university professors or have busy schedules, they are given several months to review the paper. Wright secured the reviews that came in quickly and the paper was accepted for publication within six weeks, published just a few months later. The other articles published in that same issue of Social Science Research were submitted, on average, at least a year before.
But it turns out that two out of the three peer reviewers who green-lighted the paper for publication were connected to the study.
Internal emails and documents obtained through public records requests show that even before Regnerus completed the research, the Witherspoon Institute was angling to make the research public. Regnerus therefore sought to protect himself and “limit criticism (at least a little bit)” by having the study peer-reviewed and published first. Just after Regnerus submitted his paper for review, he reached out to Pennsylvania State University sociology professor Paul Amato and informed him he put his name on a list of reviewer candidates. Regnerus encouraged Amato to accept, offering a few words of flattery.
“I’d hope that if you’re asked to review it you would consider doing so,” Regnerus emailed. “I think you’re one of the fairest, level-headed scholars out there in this domain.”
Financial records show the University of Texas paid Amato about $3,000 for early consulting work. Amato has said publicly that he divulged to Wright his association with Regnerus and his work on the study but told Wright it would not prevent him from judging the study fairly. He has since criticized the misuse of the study’s results to oppose LGBT rights.
Amato was not the only peer reviewer with a potential conflict to review and approve Regnerus’ paper.
Southern Illinois University sociology department chair Darren Sherkat, who sits on the journal’s editorial advisory board and led an internal audit into the peer review of Regnerus’ paper, filed a public-records request with the University of Texas in order to figure out which paid consultants had also been reviewers. A request of his request revealed invoices for consultant fees for two paid consultants: Amato and University of Virginia sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox, who played myriad roles on the project and whose undisclosed ties with the Witherspoon Foundation contradicted assurances from Regnerus and Witherspoon that the study’s funders were not involved in design or implementation of the research. This summer Wright told Inside Higher Ed that he asked Wilcox to review the paper and, despite his stated involvement as a paid consultant, he was “asked to proceed.”
Records also show that Wilcox, who also sits on Social Science Research’s editorial advisory board, had the idea to pitch Regnerus’ paper to Wright because he was a friend of the late Steven Nock, a sociologist out of the University of Virginia, who testified against legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada in 2001. In his written testimony, Nock criticized the standing, mostly favorable, research on same-sex marriage. He described it as fatally flawed because most of the studies used small, convenience sampling, rather than a large national random sample study measuring the outcomes of the children of gay couple parents – which is what the New Family Structures Study had claimed to be.
Who Was Involved
Jump to a section:
The Key Players
Mark Regnerus | Luis E. Tellez | W. Bradford Wilcox | Paul Amato | James D. Wright | Loren Dean Marks | Steven Nock
Promoted the Study
Brian S. Brown | Maggie Gallagher | Robert P. George | Robert Oscar Lopez
Opposed the Study
Gary J. Gates | Scott Rose | Michael J. Rosenfeld | Darren Sherkat
The Institutions
The Witherspoon Institute | The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation | The University of Texas at Austin | The National Organization for Marriage | The Ruth Institute | The Love and Fidelity Network
The Key Players
Source: youtube.com
An associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and a dedicated Catholic, Regnerus was the principal investigator of the “New Family Structures Study,” a research project conceived and mostly funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute. Following the firestorm his original paper unleashed last summer, the UT professor defended his study’s methodology, which many scholars and journalists on all sides of the political aisle criticized for effectively comparing apples to oranges. In media interviews, Regnerus has said his paper was about sociology, not ideology and that his funders played no role in the study outside giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce it. This latter point turned out to be false, as we are now aware that a Witherspoon Institute fellow who conceptualized the project was heavily involved. As for ideology, this year Regnerus signed on to amicus briefs in two Supreme Court cases, using his own study to urge the high court to rule against legalizing same-sex marriage in California and against granting federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples. Regnerus has gone on to advocate against same-sex marriage in his own writings and to speak at conferences hosted by marriage equality foes. This year he joined the nascent Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, a new academic initiative “dedicated to research on the family, marriage, and contemporary relationships.”
Source: youtube.com
Co-founder and president of the Princeton, N.J.-based Witherspoon Institute, Tellez is also a founding board member of the National Organization for Marriage and an advisory board member of the Love and Fidelity Network, which is associated with NOM. Initially Tellez authorized about $1 million to fund the New Family Structures Study, but later that money was reduced to about $700,000. In approaching the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in a fundraising letter in April 2011, Tellez explained that the intention of the study was to affirm the notion that same-sex parenting is bad for children as an argument against same-sex marriage. Tellez told Regnerus early on in the project that he wanted the study to be produced quickly in time to influence any Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage.
Source: www.virginia.edu
A conservative scholar and associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va., where he runs the National Marriage Project, Wilcox played many roles in the conception, production, and publication of the New Family Structures Study. A fellow at the Witherspoon Institute from 2004 to 2012, he helped conceptualize the study in former his role as the director of Witherspoon’s Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy. Wilcox, who had a prior working relationship with Regnerus, recruited the UT professor to lead the New Family Structures Study. During much of the time Wilcox was working for the Witherspoon Institute, he was also working as a paid consultant on the project (paid by the University of Texas, with Witherspoon’s funds). Internal emails show Wilcox had an authoritative role in the project, sitting in on meetings with Regnerus and even answering funding questions. It was Wilcox, in fact, who suggested to Regnerus, in an email, that he try to publish the article in Social Science Research, where Wilcox sits on the journal’s editorial board. Evidence from internal records suggests Wilcox also peer-reviewed Regnerus’ paper. This summer Wright told Inside Higher Ed that he asked Wilcox to review the paper and, despite his stated involvement as a paid consultant, he was “asked to proceed.”
Source: www.psu.edu
A preeminent sociologist in the field, Amato was sought out to advise and later review and comment on Mark Regnerus’ initial findings of the “New Family Structures Study.” Amato is a professor and department chair of family sociology and demography at Pennsylvania State University. He is currently board president of the National Council on Family Relations, the leading professional association for family scholars. Amato’s prestige and lack of outward political views provided legitimacy to the study. This summer Amato stated publically that he peer-reviewed Regnerus’ paper, after previously consulting the study, explaining he had “no personal or financial interest in whether the paper was published.” Amato says he disagrees with how many people, including Regnerus, have used the paper to lobby against LGBT families, and, as chair of the American Sociological Association’s Sociology of the Family Section, Amato voted for a resolution asking the ASA to respond to the Regnerus study and how it was being misused. Still, Amato stands by his initial decision to green-light the study for publication.
Source: University of Central Florida
The editor of Social Science Research and a distinguished research professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, Wright acquiesced to Regnerus’ request to have his paper on the New Family Structures Study peer-reviewed with speed. Wright reportedly offered potential reviewers just a few weeks to review as opposed to the more usual months-long deadline. Wright published Regnerus’ paper in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research (which went live online on June 10, 2012) alongside another paper, written by Louisiana State University professor Loren Marks, which attempted to discredit previous studies finding positive results of same-sex parenting. Following an outpour of backlash from the sociology and LGBT community, Wright commissioned an internal audit of the publishing and peer-review process to determine any wrongdoing. He told The American Independent in March 2013 that he resented having social science research being drawn into debates over marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples. He is currently fighting a lawsuit filed by journalist John Becker to obtain public records related to the publication of Regnerus’ paper from the University of Central Florida, where Social Science Research is housed.
Source: chse.lsu.edu/
An associate professor at Louisiana State University in the Division of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences within the School of Human Ecology, Marks wrote an article published alongside Mark Regnerus’ in the same July 2012 issue of Social Science Research. Marks’ article argued against the American Psychological Association’s position that same-sex parenting is not harmful for children and criticized the studies used to make this conclusion, arguing they were based on small, convenience sample methods. Social Science Research editorial board member Darren Sherkat, who conducted an internal audit of the publication of Marks’ and Regnerus’ studies, characterized Marks’ paper as an “argumentative review paper,” in which “no original data were collected or analyzed, nor was a systematic meta-analysis conducted.” Sherkat said it was “inappropriate” for Social Science Research to publish Marks’ article because it was not original quantitative research.
Steven Nock
Source: virginia.edu/
A former sociology professor at the University of Virginia, Nock was a recognized expert on marriage and its societal role. Nock, who died in 2008, was a critic of small, nonrandom studies on same-sex parenting; he is on record professing for the need for a large, random, population-based study to find out the outcomes of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. Nock was also the director of the University of Virginia’s Marriage Matters project, which is now headed by Bradford Wilcox, who actually suggested that Regnerus pitch his study to Social Science Research because the journal’s editor, James Wright, had been friends with Nock.
Promoted the study
The president of the National Organization for Marriage, Brown has spent the last few years fighting marriage rights for same-sex couples in America. One of Brown’s standard arguments against same-sex marriage is that children should only have a mother and a father. When Regnerus’ study came out, Brown and his organization immediately seized on the findings as proof that same-sex marriage is bad for kids. With more states legalizing marriage equality laws, Brown has been exporting his anti-gay-marriage campaigning abroad. He’s testified before a Russian State Duma committee in favor of new laws banning “non-traditional relationships propaganda” (i.e., talking about homosexuality) and the adoption of Russian-born children to gay couples.
A longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, Gallagher has influenced national public policy on marriage – having taken federal money to promote President George W. Bush’s “Healthy Marriage Initiative” in 2002 and 2003 – but she has been most influential pushing state-based anti-gay-marriage initiatives as an officer of the National Organization for Marriage, which she co-founded in 2007. Gallagher stepped down as president of NOM in 2010 and currently has a less visible position on the group’s executive committee. She is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a nonprofit based in Manassas, Va., that lobbies on marriage law. And in 2011, Gallagher founded the Culture War Victory Fund, which – though now-defunct – served as a sounding board praising Regnerus’ study, beginning the day it was published.
A McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the influential George has founded and funded myriad social conservative institutions that have become political heavyweights in the fight against marriage equality. Though the Witherspoon Institute and Mark Regnerus have denied that George was directly involved in any aspect of the New Family Structures Study, George’s seat on the board of directors on the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation indicates he was likely part of the decision by the foundation to help fund it. The Bradley Foundation’s board of directors, which directs the foundation’s funds, gave at least $90,000 to the Regnerus study in 2011. Additionally, George’s name was mentioned in a fundraising letter to the Bradley Foundation, penned by Witherspoon President Luis Tellez: “We are very grateful for The Bradley Foundation’s consideration of this request. Mark Regnerus, Robby George, Brad Wilcox, and I would be happy to work with the Bradley Foundation to identify other funding partners,” Tellez wrote. George helped draft the original Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman that was first introduced to Congress in 2002 but has never passed. George’s groups, which together launched a sort of marketing campaign for Regnerus’ study soon after it was published, include:
- The Witherspoon Institute, which he co-founded in 2003; he is now a senior fellow.
- The National Organization for Marriage, which he co-founded in 2007 and remains on the board as chairman emeritus.
- The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; he sits on the board of directors.
- The Family Research Council; he sits on the board.
- The Love and Fidelity Network, an organization based in Princeton, N.J., which trains college students to fight same-sex marriage. George is on the advisory board of the Network, which promoted Regnerus study on its website after it was published.
- The American Principles Project, which George founded in 2009 and which has collaborated with the National Organization for Marriage on fundraising.
- The Ethics and Public Policy Center; George is the vice chairman of the board of directors. The center’s president, Ed Whelan, authored a lengthy piece on both Mark Regnerus’ and Loren Marks’ papers published over two days after Regnerus’ paper was published in Social Science Research.
- The National Association of Scholars; George sits on the advisory board. The association’s president, Peter Wood, defended Regnerus’ paper about a month after it was published.
Source: csun.edu/
An assistant professor of English at California State University-Northridge, Lopez came, seemingly out of nowhere, to defend Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study. Lopez offered his own experience being raised by a lesbian mother and her girlfriend (whom he says didn’t live with them during his childhood but spent most weekends at his mom’s trailer) as an affirmation of Regnerus’ results. Lopez’ appearance onto the scene started after he left a comment on Regnerus’ website, and Regnerus initiated an email correspondence. In July 2012, the Witherspoon Institute published Lopez’s account of his childhood, in which Lopez blamed his social awkwardness, self-described strangeness, and bisexuality on his mother’s lesbianism. Soon after thrusting himself into the debate over the validity of Regnerus’ study, Lopez became a regular speaker at events hosted by the National Organization for Marriage and a regular blogger at NOM’s website. He started the blog English Manif, a host to anti-LGBT rhetoric, in a failed attempt to fight legalization of same-sex marriage in France. Lopez has compared same-sex parenting and adoption to child abuse and slavery and same-sex adoption to “cultural genocide.”
Opposed the study
Source: williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu//
At the outset of his project, Mark Regnerus approached this well-respected demographer of the LGBT population to consult on his study. But upon hearing the frame of Regnerus’ research approach. Gates gave his two cents and then declined to participate further. Upon the publication of the study, Gates, a distinguished scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute, organized an open letter signed by more than 200 researchers, excoriating Regnerus’ paper and asking that Social Science Research to invite scholars with an expertise in LGBT family research to submit a detailed critique of the paper in the subsequent issue of Social Science Research. The journal granted this request for the fall issue.
Né Scott Rosensweig, Rose is a blogger and gay-rights activist based in New York City, who instigated several complaints against Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study. Less than two weeks after Regnerus’ paper was published, Rose filed a “scientific misconduct complaint” with the University of Texas at Austin. Rose’s allegations were based largely on speculation, and the university, conducting an initial inquiry, determined no further investigation was warranted. Rose exposed several elements of the scandal at the New Civil Rights Movement blog and Lez Get Real blogs, including that Bradford Wilcox had been a paid consultant on Regnerus’ study while he worked at the Witherspoon Institute. At the behest of Rose’s complaints, Elsevier B.V., which publishes Social Science Research, referred the case to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a UK-based network of academic journal editors, to investigate the publication process of Regnerus’ paper in Social Science Research, which is a COPE member.
Source: www.stanford.edu//
An associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, Rosenfeld is the author of the first large-sample, nationally representative study that, using U.S. Census data, tested the educational outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples and found that “children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures.” Mark Regnerus initially approached Rosenfeld to consult on his project, but Rosenfeld declined, saying he was concerned with “the unusual way the project [was] funded.” Later, Social Science Research Editor James Wright approached Rosenfeld about peer-reviewing Regnerus’ research manuscript. Rosenfeld says Wright only gave him an unusually short window (about two weeks) in which to review the paper, but Rosenfeld says he ultimately declined because he was not permitted to see the data on which Regnerus’ findings were based. Rosenfeld has praised the value in the data Regnerus’ team gathered, but he has criticized how the data were interpreted. Rosenfeld has reanalyzed the New Family Structures Study data and submitted his findings to a peer-review journal. Rosenfeld says his paper comes to a very different conclusion from Regnerus’; he hopes it will be published in 2014.
Source: www.siu.edu
An associate professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale and a member of Social Science Research’s editorial board, Sherkat was an early critic of Regnerus’ paper on the New Family Structures Study. In July 2012, Social Science Research Editor James D. Wright assigned Sherkat to conduct an internal audit over the peer-review and publishing process regarding Regnerus’ and Loren Marks’ papers. In his audit, Sherkat concluded that the peer reviewers overlooked serious flaws in both papers and should never have suggested they be published without in-depth revisions. Sherkat wrote in his audit and told the press that he did know who peer-reviewed Regnerus’ study, but in a university lecture he gave last year, he claimed that two out of three of Regnerus’ peer reviewers were paid consultants on the New Family Structures Study. Public records also indicate Sherkat knew who the reviewers were. His motives for suggesting otherwise to the general public are unclear.
THE INSTITUTIONS
Source: ProtectMarriage.com
Based in Princeton, N.J., the Witherspoon Institute has been pushing a social-conservative agenda – including opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples – since it was co-founded in 2003 by Robert P. George and Luis E. Tellez. It was founded as an organization that would push a social conservative agenda using scholarship “rather than invective,” as Tellez articulated in a 2008 Princeton Alumni Weekly article. Over the years, the Witherspoon Institute, which includes mostly Catholic board members, has funded or published scholarly work alleging harms to society if same-sex couples are allowed to legally marry. Witherspoon has alluded to the interest in a study like the New Family Structures Study several years earlier in 2008, when it published a paper, commonly known as the “Princeton Principles,” which predicted that sociological research would likely show that gay-parenting is harmful for children. In late 2010, the Witherspoon Institute gave Regnerus $55,000 to begin exploring the New Family Structures Study; in the spring of 2011, Witherspoon gave him another $640,000 to conduct the study.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Based in Milwaukee, Wis., this grant-making institution, named for entrepreneurial brothers Lynde and Harry Bradley, has, since the 1980s, been donating heavily to social conservative policy causes. The foundation donated to the National Organization for Marriage in 2008 when it was fighting to pass Proposition 8 in California and gave a $90,000 grant to Regnerus to help fund his New Family Structures Study, at the request of the Witherspoon Institute. The grant was approved in November 2011. In a fundraising email to the Bradley Foundation sent in April 2011, Tellez indicated that the Bradley Foundation had granted money to Witherspoon in 2010 for a project on marriage and sexual ethics, which had been used for the New Family Structures Study. In this letter, Tellez explained that the study would likely vindicate the theory that same-sex marriage is a bad idea because it hurts children.
Source: www.utexas.edu
A very well-respected public university in Austin, Texas, the University of Texas’ Population Research Center housed the New Family Structures Study financing the study through grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The University of Texas responded to an early scientific misconduct compliant against Mark Regnerus, as is university protocol, but dropped it in August 2012, declaring no wrongdoing had been found and no further investigation was warranted. The university fought requests for records over the study but following an appeal to the Texas Attorney General’s office eventually released some documents to the journalists who had made the requests.
Founded in 2007 to push a voter referendum banning same-sex marriage in California, the National Organization for Marriage has remained the leading group fighting same-sex marriage, and now overseas. NOM has consistently cited Regnerus’ study as evidence that gay marriage is bad for children; just in the first week the study was released, the group devoted five blog posts to the study. NOM President Brian Brown is on the record speaking to Russian parliament about the supposed dangers of same-sex marriage on children and religious rights shortly before Russian President Vladimir Putin signed laws seizing parental rights of gay people and making it illegal to talk to children about homosexuality. And there is some evidence that NOM had been actively working toward finding scholars to denounce gay marriage using credible research. In court documents unsealed by a Maine court last year, NOM’s confidential strategy documents showed NOM had been working with scholars to sign on to amicus briefs condemning same-sex marriage in same-sex marriage litigation. The documents also revealed NOM’s “expert witness project,” whose goal was to “identify and nurture a worldwide community of highly credentialed intellectuals and professional scholars, physicians, social workers, and writers to credential our concerns and to interrupt the silencing that takes place in the academy around gay marriage and related family issues.”
Now an affiliated organization of the National Organization for Marriage (registered as a 501c3 to NOM’s 501c4), the Ruth Institute was initially founded in 2008 by Jennifer Roback Morse. The organization, based in San Diego, Calif., and whose moniker is “making marriage cool,” targets anti-gay marriage messaging at young people. The Ruth Institute has frequently used Regnerus’ study in its messaging, and Regnerus was a featured speaker at the Ruth Institute’s annual It Takes a Family conference this year.
Founded in 2007 by Cassandra DeBenedetto and based in Princeton, N.J., the Love and Fidelity Network’s primary mission is to train young college conservatives at on how to fight same-sex marriage. The group has ties to the National Organization for Marriage and includes former NOM co-founders Maggie Gallagher and Robert George and co-founding board members Luis Tellez on its advisory board, as well as Bradford Wilcox. NOM’s internal strategy documents unsealed by a Maine court last year revealed that NOM viewed the Love and Fidelity Network as a source to train Ivy League students to fight against legalizing same-sex marriage. Mark Regnerus spoke at a Love and Fidelity National Conference in 2009 and again in 2012.
Copyright © 2013 The Human Rights Campaign | Privacy Policy