Tag Archives: same-sex

Michigan same-sex marriage case, entirely unbelievable edition

Sociologists breathed a sigh of relief when U.S. district court judge Bernard Friedman, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988, ruled that Michigan’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (here is the decision). What I wish we’d call homogamous marriage commenced a few hours later.

We’re relieved because the social science consensus was put on trial in the case, as the judge allowed researchers to debate whether gay and lesbian parents are bad for kids, to see if any rational basis could be found for a state law that clearly harms gay and lesbian couples. He concluded there was no such basis.

I discussed the case and its anti-equality experts here (Mark Regnerus) and here (Douglas Allen), and the whole history is hashed out on the Regnerus tag. And Judge Friedman seems to have agreed. He concluded of Regnerus, “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” And of the anti-equality experts in general:

The Court was unable to accord the testimony of [Loren] Marks, [Joseph] Price, and Allen any significant weight. … They, along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields.

Like the brutal dismissal of non-expert David Blankenhorn in a similar case in California, Friedman’s assessment was simple and fair. In Blankenhorn’s case, he simply wasn’t an expert at all. In the Michigan case, team no-rights simply had no convincing evidence to support their claims. His detailed description of their failure is worth reading.

In this trial, and in the several years we’ve been hashing this out, the good experts have not received nearly as much attention as the charlatans, which is too bad because there were really good. In his summary of the evidence, Judge Friedman offered these evaluations:

David Brodzinsky: “The Court finds Brodzinsky’s testimony to be fully credible and gives it considerable weight.”

Michael Rosenfeld: “The Court finds Rosenfeld’s testimony to be highly credible and gives it great weight.”

Vivek Sankaran: “The Court finds Sankaran’s testimony to be fully credible and gives it great weight.”

Gary Gates: “whom the Court also found to be a highly credible witness.”

Nancy Cott: “The Court finds Cott to be highly credible and accords her testimony great weight”

Loving it

The bad-for-children argument is bad science, bad politics, bad morals, and bad law.

This is not some politically-correct cover-up. I would have been perfectly willing to report results — if I had them — showing that children being raised by gay and lesbian couples had more trouble than those raised by heterogamous couples. Why not? They’re a subordinate group, experiencing all manner of discrimination (much of it completely legal), and for most of history they haven’t even been allowed to marry. Judge Friedman wrote (with reference to Rosenfeld’s study):

Taking the state defendants’ position to its logical conclusion, the empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all other heterosexual couples.

In other words, some of my favorite social groups have children who share in their subordinate social status and marginalization. With regard to their right to marry, so what? To make this a rational reason for a state ban, you would have to show not only that it was some inherent quality of their gender that harmed the children, and that the harm was greater than the many other risks we subject children of parents to, but also that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow make this worse. Friedman concluded,

There is, in short, no logical connection between banning same-sex marriage and providing children with an ‘optimal environment’ or achieving ‘optimal outcomes.’

Anyway, the legal question we’re heading for here, really, is the legal power of individual states to ban same-sex marriage. That was what the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision (which I wrote about here) didn’t decide. But in that decision, Justice Kennedy signaled SCOTUS’s willingness to take that on, writing that the “states’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation [is] subject to constitutional guarantees,” a passage Friedman quoted, adding, “These statements are not merely surplusage.”

Not mere surplusage because Kennedy made the remark in the context of the Loving v. Virginia case that overturned mixed-race marriage bans. Like today’s cases moving toward the Supreme Court, Loving eventually came down to whether states had the power to impose unconstitutional limits on marriage. And the defenders of those racist laws used the same last-ditch arguments that Regnerus used this time. The science is unsettled, they said. Here is an excerpt from the state of Virginia’s appeal to SCOTUS*:

If this Court (erroneously, we contend) should undertake such an inquiry [into evidence of a scientific nature tending to support or undermine a legislative determination of the wisdom or desirability (of Virginia’s interracial marriage ban)], it would quickly find itself mired in a veritable Serbonian bog of conflicting scientific opinion upon the effects of interracial marriage, and the desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological and sociological point of view. The available scientific materials are sufficient to support the validity of the challenged Virginia statutes whether the constitutional standard be deemed to require appellants to demonstrate that those statutes are arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable or to require the State to show a compelling interest in the continuation of its policy prohibiting interracial marriages. In such a situation it is the exclusive province of the Legislature of each State to make the determination for its citizens as to the desirability of a policy of permitting or preventing such alliances-a province which the judiciary may not constitutionally invade.

Virginia then cited the science of the day:

The statistical evidence incorporated in this study makes it clear that the ‘odds’ do not favor intermarriages, in that almost two to four times as many intermarriages as intramarriages end in divorce, separation or annulment. This is a highly significant fact. It is objective and utterly free from emotion-inducing factors. It ought, therefore, to be considered and weighed most carefully.

And then they quoted a study: “In the absence of any uniform rule as to consequences of race crosses, it is well to discourage it.” That is Regnerus almost verbatim.

Friedman concluded:

Taken together, both the Windsor and Loving decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the MMA cannot stand.

And with that he teed up the case for the Supreme Court.

Tip it

And with that we can update the tipping point chart (last updated here). Please note this figure has its imitators, but no one else calculates the percentages using the state and national populations for each year!

tippingpoint

Give it till the end of the year to get back on the curve-breaking track.

* Richard Perry LOVING, Et Ux., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA, Appellee., 1967 WL 93641 (U.S.), 49

14 Comments

Filed under In the news

The blogger will be heard, Michigan trial edition

I’ve written a few posts about the Federal trial over Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban (a post-trial interview, a rant about economist Douglas Allen, and an early report on Mark Regnerus’s testimony). Now we have the first release of transcripts, available here. There may be more to say about them after I’ve read more, but just for the record, here’s the part where they discussed this blog.

regnerus pencil sketch

This is from the cross examination of sociologist Mark Regenerus by Leslie Cooper, an ACLU attorney. After confirming from Regnerus that it is impossible to do the kind of study he says would be necessary to give the evidence he claims to want before deciding whether same-sex parenting is bad for children, she turns to a general discrediting of Regnerus. One piece of that involved reading Paul Amato’s statement, published on this blog here, provoked by my post expressing disapproval over his apparent decision to serve as a peer reviewer for Regnerus’s Social Science Research paper. In this passage, Regnerus squirms and stalls, and his lawyer objects, hoping never to get to the part where Amato criticizes Regnerus’s politicization of his research.

I have corrected a few typos. The Q’s are Cooper and the A’s are Regnerus; The Court is played by U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman (a 1988 Reagan appointee); Kristin Heyse interjects for the defense (Michigan); I play the part of “the blogger”:

Q Now, are you familiar with a sociologist named Paul Amato?

A Yes.

Q He’s a professor of sociology at Penn State?

A Yes.

Q And you consider Paul Amato to be a well-regarded scholar in family structure studies?

A I do.

Q You consider him to be a level and level-headed scholar?

A Generally speaking.

Q And you consider him to be a scholar who’s right down the middle politically neither liberal, nor conservative?

A He had struck me at one point. I have no idea if that is entirely accurate, but he strikes me as a moderate.

Q And, in fact, you asked Paul Amato to be one of the consultants on your study.

A I did.

Q And he agreed?

A He did.

Q So he served as a consultant?

A Yes.

MS. COOPER: I like to mark a document as an exhibit for identification. It’s Exhibit 54.

MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I would just ask that we be provided a copy. We have not seen it.

THE COURT: I think counsel has a bunch of copies.

MS. HEYSE: If we could have a few minutes to review?

THE COURT: Sure. Show it to the witness so he can review it also.

MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I would just note for the record that we did agree to exchange exhibits in advance of the trial and this was not provided to us.

THE COURT: Why was it not provided?

MS. COOPER: This is being used for identification to ask questions, and it was an exhibit that was used at the deposition, they have it.

THE COURT: Do you intend to introduce it?

MS. COOPER: No.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. HEYSE: Oh, I’m sorry.

THE COURT: It’s only for purposes of use, but not for –

MS. COOPER: Not to admit.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MS. COOPER:

Q So, Dr. Regnerus, this is a statement Paul Amato wrote about your NFSS Study; is that right?

A The source is a blog. I’m not sure what all of it is verbatim, Paul Amato’s words, and what is –

Q Well, I’ll direct your attention. Thank you for clarifying.

A This is not Paul Amato’s blog.

Q Understood. If you’ll read with me. It says here –

THE COURT: Tell him where you’re reading.

MS. COOPER: I just want to find the right passage.

BY MS. COOPER:

Q If you look at the second paragraph from the top.

A First page?

Q Yes. Second sentence, “I regret that before writing that post” –

A Who wrote that?

Q I’ll clarify. The first three paragraphs in Italics are statements from somebody who wrote the blog, not attributable to Paul Amato.

MS. HEYSE: I’m going to object, your Honor, to the extent this is hearsay.

THE COURT: I’m not sure where she’s going at. The first three were not written by –

MS. COOPER: I’m trying to direct Professor Regnerus to the statement that this blogger says, “There is a statement sent to me by Paul Amato which I agreed to post” and then he posts the statement below.

A And who is he?

THE COURT: Who is the blogger, is that your question?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. COOPER: The blogger’s name is Phil Cohen, I believe. This is something we looked at [in] your deposition.

BY MS. COOPER:

Q Do you not recall identifying it?

A I do, yeah. I just don’t know — I can’t identify on this who wrote this top part.

Q Okay. But the part I want to flag your attention to is in the second paragraph it says — this is not Paul Amato, this is the blogger, “I regret that before” –

MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I’m going to object to the extent of reading something into the record –

THE COURT: Sustained. The blogger said something and now what’s your question?

MS. COOPER: I don’t really care what the blogger said, I just wanted to direct Professor Regnerus to the statement from Paul Amato that is posted here.

THE COURT: Good.

BY MS. COOPER:

Q That begins, “Thoughts on the Mark Regnerus 2012 Study by Paul Amato.” Do you see that heading in bold?

A Yes.

Q So that’s the beginning of the statement. So I’d like you to turn to page 3 of this statement.

A Are there’s 12 pages to this? I’m only seeing four.

Q This is the first four. I didn’t print the comments to the blog because — I think, in fact, that may have been something that counsel for defendants did not want to include in the exhibit. But either way I did not consider that.

THE COURT: The exhibit is just to ask him questions.

MS. COOPER: It’s just to feature the statement.

BY MS. COOPER:

Q So if you can go to page 3 with me.

A Okay. If you would look at the second paragraph from the bottom, okay, beginning with the second sentence, and read along with me, “Many” –

MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, it’s hearsay and she can’t read it into the record.

MS. COOPER: It’s not for the truth. I want to ask him if he agrees with statements made by one of his own consultants about his study.

THE COURT: For that purpose, you may.

BY MS. COOPER:

Q “Many conservative observers have cited the Regnerus study as if it provided evidence that being raised by gay or lesbian parents is harmful to children. This claim is disingenuous because the study found no such thing. A noteworthy example came from Regnerus himself who signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court citing his study as evidence against same sex marriage. This is curious because on page 766 in his 2012 article, Regnerus stated that his study was not intended to either affirm or undermine the legal right to same sex marriage. And on page 768 of his response to the commentaries in the same issue, he stated that his data should not be used to press any political program. Given these cautious early statements it is exasperating to see Regnerus later cite his own study as evidence against same sex marriage.”

So, first question about this: Is Professor Amato who is a consultant on your study correct to say that it is disingenuous to claim that the NFSS Study provides evidence that being raised by gay or lesbian parents is harmful to children?

A The question hinges around sort of what does it mean to be raised by, right? And I think we mentioned this a little bit yesterday and it says gay or lesbian parents. My mistake and acronyms notwithstanding I talk about parents who have same sex relationship with no assumptions about their orientation. So when he talks about “being raised by” which implies some degree of time I assume and household presence I assume. But then he goes and uses gay or lesbian as an adjective which I don’t think — I mean, I don’t have data on the orientation, it’s harmful to children. I think the jury is out on this, figuratively speaking. What we need is — the absence raises significant questions about children who grow up in families where a parent has a same sex relationship. What it doesn’t answer his question about orientation, and it didn’t come designed to answer political questions. It came designed to address an intellectual question.

Q Okay. So he is correct in your view that — sorry. He is correct that you said the study was not intended to either affirm or undermine the legal rights of same sex marriage?

A That’s what I wrote in the original study, yes.

Thanks to Straight Grandmother for making this available. The full document is here.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

People who believe in hell are allowed to raise children?

First someone with a sociology PhD refers to a social institution existing “since time immemorial.” Now an economist pronounces on the eternal destination of homosexuals. What kind of expert witness operation are they running over there in Michigan?

The economist is Douglas W. Allen, testifying in a case over the challenge to Michigan’s same-sex marriage (let’s call it homogamy) ban. Allen recently conducted a study claiming to show that children of gay and lesbian parents in Canada are less likely to succeed in school; a study that, in my expert opinion, is worthless.

The plaintiff’s lawyer asked, and Allen answered:

Q: Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation? … In other words, they’re going to hell?

A: Without repentance, yes.

This is just a repetition of an exchange during Allen’s deposition for the trial:

Q: What are the consequences of the sin of engaging in homosexual acts according to your religious beliefs?

A: The consequences of those sins would be the same as the consequences of any sin which is just a separation from God.

Q: He who is separated from God is condemned according to your religious beliefs; isn’t that correct?

A: Eventually.

Q: Okay. And being condemned means what, Professor?

A: Means eternal separation from God.

Q: In other words, going to hell; isn’t that correct? [an objection about leading the witness] You started to nod your head yes. Is the answer correct?

A: Yes.

Photo from Flickr Creative Commons by Christian Terboven

Photo from Flickr Creative Commons by Christian Terboven

A couple of thoughts on this. First, just thank God at how far we have come from the horror of theocratic society (however far that is). This claim by Allen was the news from the day in court. Not because gays and lesbians are actually going to burn in hell, but because someone said so in polite company. Which makes him a despicable person. If there was even the slightest shred of possibility that gays and lesbians would actually spend eternity suffering in some awful way as a result of the kind of sex they had in life, that would be so much worse than anything else at stake in this trial that the mundane legal proceedings would be pointless. What could matter more?

This brings me to the second point: People who believe this stuff are allowed to raise children? And teach it to them? Allen’s polite euphemism — “separation from God” — is the modern Evangelical way of saying “burn in hell.” Nothing could be worse. So if you are unfortunate enough to be raised by such a person, you have to either know that your father is a crazy, malicious liar (which is traumatic for a child to think about its father), or you have to actually believe this horror story of eternal suffering as a result of “any sin” not repented. Holy sh*t. And on his website Allen brags that he’s been teaching Sunday school for decades.

And we’re arguing about the grade point average of students raised by two men or two women? (Which, again, Allen’s study said nothing of value about).

This reminds me of the kerfuffle over Richard Dawkins’ claim that being indoctrinated into believing in hell was as traumatic — or more traumatic — for some Catholic children as it was to suffer “the temporary embarrassment of mild physical abuse” at the hands of priests. Although being provocative (and it was an off-the-cuff remark, the first time), I don’t believe Dawkins was minimizing sexual abuse when he said that; rather, he was calling out the severe trauma experienced by children who were raised on the literal existence of hell. There is no need to compare one trauma versus another to make either Dawkins or pedophile priests look bad — it’s enough to acknowledge that a lot of children suffer both ways. That’s important, because it means crazy hell-teachers may be harming children even when they’re not raping them (which of course they usually aren’t).

So, sure. Let’s have a whole trial about whether gay and lesbian parents are bad for children. And let’s allow someone like Allen to take the stand as an expert witness. And let’s allow any straight parent (or gay parent, for that matter) to shame their children to bed each night on tales of horror and eternal suffering. But if, after all that, we refuse to let gay and lesbian couples be married parents — that would be disappointing.

17 Comments

Filed under In the news

‘Gay marriage hurts kids,’ zombie edition

Last summer I wrote, “The Supreme Court Kills the ‘Gay Marriage Is Bad for Kids’ Argument.” But now comes this in the New York Times: “Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court.” So I guess it’s undead, at least long enough to pay a few more expert witness fees.

The NYTimes story covers their approach, which I can’t imagine will get past Anthony Kennedy at the Supreme Court, who has made it clear which direction the harm runs. He wrote in the decision last summer that, under the Defense of Marriage Act,  “same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” which “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

Maze update

Anyway, today’s story leads us back to the Regnerus affairIn a 2010 email (described here) — one that presumably taught the young Mark Regnerus not to put everything in his university emails, the one that would definitively expose that Brad Wilcox lied about his role in the study — Regnerus wrote to Wilcox:

I would like, at some point, to get more feedback from Luis and Maggie about the ‘boundaries’ around this project, not just costs but also their optimal timelines (for the coalition meeting, the data collection, etc.), and their hopes for what emerges from this project, including the early report we discussed in DC.

I knew that referred to Luis Tellez from the Witherspoon Institute, but I couldn’t be sure that “Maggie” was Maggie Gallagher. But it now appears from expert deposition in the upcoming Michigan trial (from David Allen here, and Joe Price here) that the DC meeting was organized by Heritage Foundation staff, who paid for the participants’ travel expenses. And it included Gallagher, David Blankenhorn, Wilcox and Regnerus. This is not surprising, but it’s important, because it puts those experts, who went on to produce research for the cause, in a meeting organized for the purpose of developing the legal case against gay marriage. This could be relevant to their status as expert witnesses, but it’s also relevant to the politics-of-science aspect of this whole thing.

So we can update the Regnerus affair maze, adding Gallagher and Heritage (now I’m out of spots):

regenerus-affair-maze-updated

My opinion

In case it’s not obvious, I would like to express this opinion: honest social scientists do not combine these activities: (1) secret meetings with partisan activist groups to raise money and set political agendas for their research; and, (2) omitting mention of those associations later. If Regnerus, Wilcox, Allen, and Price, had included acknowledgements in their publications that described these associations, then they would be just like anyone else who does research on subjects on which they have expressed opinions publicly: potentially legitimate but subject to closer scrutiny (which should include editors not including people from the same group as reviewers). Failure to disclose this in the publication process is dishonesty.

Funny aside: just the other day I used the NYTimes‘ habit of quoting Andrew Cherlin on family trends as an example of the paper’s narrow reach into the deep bench of publicly engaged sociologists. And here he is again, quoted making the well-known observation that, “The overwhelming evidence so far is that there’s not much difference between children raised by heterosexual or same-sex parents.” What’s disappointing is that he serves as the story’s voice above the fray — the expert who is “not involved in the case” — when they have the American Sociological Association’s report making the same argument with what should be more heft toward the end of the story.

Tell it like it’s not addendum

This issue of the political agenda behind the research has been raised as a possible reason to disqualify the anti-equality expert witnesses. To that end, apparently, the Brigham Young economist Joseph Price took a grant from the Witherspoon Institute off his CV — but not before the plaintiff’s counsel saw it, leading to this funny exchange during his deposition (at tiny-page 15 here; pointed out to me by Neal Caren):

price-lieThis justification, that the grant “doesn’t really fit the category of a grant in the same way others do,” as a reason to completely take it off your CV, is somewhere between highly unusual and just plain ludicrous.

 

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

State of Utah falsely claims same-sex marriage ban makes married, man-woman parenting more likely

This hasn’t been peer-reviewed, but it’s pretty simple, and I will give the results, data, and code to anyone who wants it. Also, ask me about my low-low expert witness rates ($0 per hour + expenses for federal same-sex marriage cases). If you know the Utah lawyers and they’re looking for this kind of thing, pass it on!

The State of Utah’s “Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal,” to stop same-sex marriage from continuing while they appeal their most recent loss, has nothing new to offer, legally. And the social science claims they make are by now a familiar patter of discredited blather, featuring the writing of Regnerus, Wilcox, Blankenhorn, and Allen (follow the links for debunking).

But I either never noticed or never thought about one of their stranger claims, which I felt compelled to debunk. They wrote (excerpting):

A final reason to believe there is a strong likelihood this Court will ultimately invalidate the district court’s injunction is the large and growing body of social science research contradicting the central premise of the district court’s due process and equal protection holdings: i.e., its conclusion (Decision at 2) that there is “no rational reason”—much less any compelling reason—for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That research … confirms … (b) that limiting the definition of marriage to man-woman unions, though it cannot guarantee that outcome, substantially increases the likelihood that children will be raised in such an arrangement. (p. 14)

And then again:

[B]y holding up and encouraging man-woman unions as the preferred arrangement in which to raise children, the State can increase the likelihood that any given child will in fact be raised in such an arrangement. … [T]he district court ignored this fundamental reality. … [p. 18] … By contrast, a State that allows same-gender marriage necessarily loses much of its ability to encourage gender complementarity as the preferred parenting arrangement. And it thereby substantially increases the likelihood that any given child will be raised without the everyday influence of his or her biological mother and father—indeed, without the everyday influence of a father or a mother at all. (p. 17)

Wait a minute. Are they claiming that banning same-sex marriage actually results in more children being raised by married, man-woman couples? Unless you make heterogamous marriage and childbearing compulsory, this doesn’t seem like a sure bet. In fact, now that we have so many people living under the same-sex marriage regime, we can start to investigate this.

Does banning gay marriage work to put kids under heterogamously-married roofs?

Seven states plus the District of Columbia permitted legal same-sex marriage by 2012: Washington, New York, New Hampshire, D.C., Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, which led the way in 2004. And as of very recently we have the 2012 American Community Survey, with ample sample size to assess family structure for every state in every year since 2004.

This analysis is very simple and not a causal analysis of family structure. I am simply testing the assertion by the State of Utah that banning gay marriage “can increase the likelihood that any given child will in fact be raised in such an arrangement.” I do this in a very simple way, and then a pretty simple way.

First, just the raw trends. This shows very simply that children are more likely to live with married parents in states that permit same-sex marriage (red lines) than in states that don’t (blue lines):

ssm-married-kidsI did this both for age 0, to capture marital status at birth, and for all children ages 0-14, to get closer to the concept of “raised.” Here is a table showing the numbers, with the differences calculated, showing exactly how much more likely children are to live with married parents if their states permit same-sex marriage:

ssm-married-kids-table

Whatever the reason, then, children in states that permit same-sex marriage have been 2% – 10% more likely to live with married parents over the last decade. (The same-sex couples themselves do not contribute to this pattern, because the public-use ACS files do not yet count them as married.)

Two potential problems with that as the analysis. First, maybe those states were just more pro-marriage places in the first place (the obvious inference to draw from the fact that they permit same-sex marriage). And second, the declining tendency of children to live with married parents nation-wide might be driving this, as more states join the same-sex marriage pool over time.

To fix these problems, I conducted a simple fixed-effects logistic regression, entering dummy variables for every state and every year into a model predicting whether children live with married parents or not. The only other variable indicates whether the child lives in a state that permits same-sex marriage. By holding constant each state’s average rate, and the national trend over time, the model isolates the statistical association with same-sex marriage legal status. This asks, in essence, whether states that change from not-legal same-sex marriage to legal same-sex marriage have lower or higher odds of their children living with married parents after the change.

Here are the results:

ssm-married-kids-logit

The odds ratios for the same-sex marriage variable are above 1.0, indicating the children in same-sex marriage states are more likely to live with married parents. The effect is not statistically significant from zero at conventional levels for infants, but it is for all children ages 0-14. Again, for whatever reason — it’s not important for this — children are more likely to live with married parents if they live in states where same-sex marriage is legal. All that matters is that the State of Utah’s claim is refuted.

Summarizing all the experience we have data for so far — 34 state-years of data — there is no evidence that allowing same-sex marriage reduces the likelihood that children will be born to or live with married, man-woman parents. If that’s your goal, this policy doesn’t seem to work. (I don’t share that goal, and I especially don’t think it’s relevant to determining legal access to marriage, but they brought it up.)

I’m not the first one to think of this, of course. An earlier analysis in PLoS One found no evidence that same-sex marriage affects the rate of different-sex marriage. That analysis was of marriage, and its most recent data were from 2009. I haven’t seen anyone else do this for children’s living arrangements, and the 2012 only recently became available. If Gary Gates or someone else has done this, please let me know.

4 Comments

Filed under Research reports

Regnerus Affair timeline, with maze

Next Monday (8/12 and 2:30 pm) at the American Sociological Association meetings, the Sex and Gender section is hosting a session titled, “When the Professional becomes Political: Responding to the New Family Structures Survey.” Organized by C. J. Pascoe and Nathaniel Burke, the session includes papers by Andrew Perrin (with myself and Neal Caren); Simon Cheng and Brian Powell; Megan Carroll; and Tey Meadow. It should be great.

regnerus-maze

As a study aid for interested parties, I’ve prepared this updated timeline of the Regnerus Affair with links to sources.

2010

  • September 3, 2010: Witherspoon’s Luis Tellez writes to a research company, “At the request of Brad Wilcox, I am sending you a description of ‘The New Family Structure Study.’” Later that month he writes to Regnerus, “It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court.”
  • September 21, 2010: Regnerus writes to Wilcox to nail down administrative details with Witherspoon, “And per your instruction, I should think of this as a planning grant, with somewhere on par of $30-$40k if needed” (Wilcox approves).
  • October 2010: Regnerus’s $55,000 planning grant from Witherspoon begins.
  • October – December, 2010: Regnerus attempts to recruit consultants. (“Why am I running this project, you may wonder. Good question. Pragmatically, probably because Brad Wilcox is swamped…”)

2011

  • May 2011: Regenerus’s $640,000 grant from Witherspoon begins.
  • August 19, 2011: New Family Structures Survey data collection start date (see article timeline).
  • August 22, 2011: Regnerus says he spent a day with Wilcox, Glenn Stanton from Focus on the Family, and Scott Stanley “discussing public/media relations for the NFSS project.”
  • November 2011: Regnerus’s $90,000 grant from the Bradley Foundation begins.
  • Undated: Wilcox suggests to Regnerus that they send the paper to Social Science Research because “Steven Nock’s good friend Jim Wright is editor” and “Wright also likes Paul Amato.”
  • December 2011: Regnerus asks Wright “if he’d consider both reviewing the overview manuscript … and if he’d be speedy about it” (according to Regnerus’s email to Amato).

2012

  • February 1, 2012: Paper officially received by Social Science Research.
  • February 2, 2012: Regnerus sends a copy of the paper to Amato, telling Amato he has suggested him to Wright as a reviewer.
  • February 21, 2012: Data collection end date.
  • February 24, 2012: Data file delivered to University of Texas “containing the collected data.”
  • February 29, 2012: Revised paper received by Social Science Research.
  • March 12, 2012: Paper accepted by Social Science Research.
  • April 2012: Wilcox bills $2,000 in consulting fees for the New Family Structures Survey.
  • June 10, 2012: Paper published online, with disclaimer, “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.”
  • June 11, 2012: American College of Pediatricians references the paper in its amicus brief filed in the case of Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management.
  • June 29, 2012: Letter signed by 200 researchers, organized by Gary Gates, to the editor and advisory board of the journal, to “raise serious concerns” about the article.
  • August 2012: At the American Sociological Association meeting in Denver, various sections of the association call for its Council to commission an amicus brief.
  • October 2, 2012: Brad Wilcox writes “for the record” that he “never served as an officer or a staffer at the Witherspoon Institute, and I never had the authority to make funding or programmatic decisions at the Institute,” and that he was ” not acting in an official Witherspoon capacity” when he worked with Regnerus.
  • November 2012: Social Science Research publishes eight pieces on the controversy, including a statement by editor James Wright, Darren Sherkat’s review of the publication process, and Regnerus’s own response.

2013

  •  January 29, 2013: A group of conservative academics, including Mark Regnerus, submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, concluding, “it remains prudent for government to continue to recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman.”
  • February 28, 2013: The American Sociological Association releases its amicus brief for the Supreme Court: “Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being.”
  • March 2013: Release of public records from University of Texas related to the New Family Structures Survey. My interpretation is here.
  • March 26, 2013: In oral arguments for Hollingsworth v. Perry, judge Antonin Scalia says there is “considerable disagreement among sociologists as to … the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family”
  • June 26, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court decides U.S. v. Windsor (overturning DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (overturning California Proposition 8) cases.
  • July 20, 2013: Paul Amato’s statement on his role as a reviewer of the Regnerus paper.
  • August 2, 2013: James Wright, in an email to Inside Higher Ed, discloses that Brad Wilcox was a reviewer of the Regnerus paper.

6 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

The Supreme Court Kills the ‘Gay Marriage Is Bad for Kids’ Argument

Originally posted on TheAtlantic.com

The majority opinion in United States v. Windsor said that denying gay couples the right to marry is harmful to children.

cohen_parents_post.jpg
Logo/AP Images

When it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court didn’t say gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry. But the decision established that taking away the benefits of such marriages–if they are granted by states–does unjustified harm to those couples. Under DOMA, wrote Kennedy, “same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” which he went on to list in detail–from healthcare and bankruptcy protection to the right to be buried in veterans’ cemeteries.

One of the most important aspects of the decision is what it says about the children of same-sex couples. The defenders of DOMA tried to argue that same-sex marriage is bad for children. But the majority accepted Justice Kennedy’s argument (which he raised during oral arguments) that denying marriage hurts the children of these couples. DOMA, wrote Kennedy, “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

In an attempt to prevent the overturn of DOMA, a small group of social scientists had–with the backing of conservative foundations–tried to marshal evidence that the parenting of gay and lesbian couples is harmful–or at least might be harmful–to children, and therefore it shouldn’t be given the legal stamp of approval implied by the label “marriage.” They argued in a brief to the Supreme Court:

With so many significant outstanding questions about whether children develop as well in same-sex households as in opposite-sex households, it remains prudent for government to continue to recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman, thereby promoting what is known to be an ideal environment for raising children.

Scalia picked it up that line of reasoning in the oral arguments for the Proposition 8 case:

there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.

The true consensus among sociologists, as expressed by the American Sociological Association, is that there is no evidence of such harm. The ASA wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court:

When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined–which the ASA has done–the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents … Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts and do not justify upholding DOMA and Proposition 8.

In the face of this consensus, claiming same-sex couples are bad for children is arguably the equivalent of denying climate change, evolution, or the fact that HIV causes AIDS. As long as there are one or two cranks who oppose the consensus, someone can say there is “considerable disagreement.” But that didn’t hold any sway today. The lack of resonance for this argument is apparent in its absence from the decisions–and the dissents–today. Neither Kennedy nor Scalia and Alito, in their dissents, invoked the argument that the children of gay and lesbian couples suffer harm as a result of their family structure.

Even if there are lingering doubts about whether gay and lesbian families–on average–are “ideal” or not, the Court implicitly ruled that such concerns don’t rise to the level needed to overcome the harms caused to gay and lesbian married couples and their children. Once the debate shifted to whether the government has justification to take away something of value from a distinct group, the burden was on the opponents of gay marriage to show some justification for it. And they couldn’t.

This does not mean the government has no business regulating family life to protect children. It does mean, though, that the government shouldn’t do so by picking family structures. As an essay in Pediatrics argued recently, government should focus on supporting people in diverse family arrangements–and intervening when individual children are harmed or put at risk, regardless of their family structure.

Of course, there is not much hope for changing the minds of those who agree with Tim Roder of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He wrote that, “regardless of what the court decides, marriage cannot be redefined. Its meaning cannot be changed.” But such appeals to tradition shouldn’t be the basis for legal decisions. And today they weren’t.

5 Comments

Filed under In the news

Tipping pointed

As of today, 30% of Americans live in states that have legal homogamous marriage.

More later on today Supreme Court decisions. First here’s the updated tipping point chart, with California added:

homogamy-tipping-point-ca

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Homogamy tipping point update: between elections edition

After the last election I described the trend toward legal homogamy as taking a tipping point shape. Not a media-hype tipping point that’s really just a milestone or watershed (like the arbitrary 50%), but a bona fide straw-that-breaks-the camel’s-back shape – that is, an exponential trend.

The between-election update shows us continuing on that trend, with Rhode Island and now Delaware falling on the line. Here I’ve plotted the percent of the population living under a post-homogamy state regime, and the number of states (including DC):homogamy-tipping-point

Even assuming they don’t legalize it nationally, if the Supreme Court lets California’s homogamy law stand after all this graph will go through the proverbial roof.

On the other hand, of course, the future is not yet determined. We won’t know till it happens what happened. In that I must agree with the Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation and National Organization for Marriage, who write in a recent pamphlet:

Q: Isn’t same-sex marriage inevitable?
A: No.

(I disagree with the rest of the pamphlet.)

6 Comments

Filed under In the news, Politics

I hope Charles Murray’s gay friends also have some better friends

Charles Murray still thinks legalizing homogamy is a “dangerous thing in a philosophical sense,” although he acknowledges that the political train has “left the station” and urges Republicans to stop fighting it for practical reasons.

charles-murray

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he described his “number of gay and lesbian friends” and how they surprised the social scientist in him by being not just responsible parents, but “excruciatingly responsible parents” (See, “some of my best friends are…” and “aren’t gays hilariously fastidious?”)

But Murray’s gay friends should beware, because when he is acting as an (alleged) social scientist, he’s not so kind. In a section of his book Coming Apart that has received disappointingly little attention, he wrote:

I am predicting that over the next few decades advances in evolutionary psychology are going to be conjoined with advances in genetic understanding, leading to a scientific consensus that goes something like this: There are genetic reasons, rooted in the mechanisms of human evolution, why little boys who grow up in neighborhoods without married fathers tend to reach adolescence not socialized to the norms of behavior that they will need to stay out of prison and to hold jobs. The same reasons explain why child abuse is, and always will be, concentrated among family structures in which the live-in male is not the married biological father. The same reasons explain why society’s attempts to compensate for the lack of married biological fathers don’t work and will never work.

There is no reason to be frightened of such knowledge. We will still be able to acknowledge that many single women do a wonderful job of raising their children. Social democrats may be able to design some outside interventions that do some good. But they will have to stop claiming that the traditional family is just one of many equally valid alternatives. They will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensable role in human flourishing and that social policy must be based on truth.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized