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!


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

16 thoughts on “Michigan same-sex marriage case, entirely unbelievable edition

  1. This is a very sober point, Philip:

    “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.”

    Deviance is always messy at first, and if we let the reliability of the appearance of that mess suggest that deviance is itself almost always a bad thing, then we choke off the chances of cases of deviance becoming legitimate, and in so doing choke off one of the few things we’ve done right in the last couple hundred years — accomplished a modicum of expansion of human freedoms to people who were once considered not fully human.


  2. Victory for April DeBore, Jayne Rowse AND their 3 children and for our society.
    Dr. Phillip Cohen is the only Sociologist who continued to report the developments in the Social Science for Hate genre, a/k/a Regnerus et al.
    Whereas OrgTheory another leading Sociology blog couldn’t be bothered, in fact childishly called Regnerus “He Who Shall Not Be Named,” and then literally followed through by never mentioning him again after one or two blog articles. These high profile Court Cases, the biggest Civil Rights Constitutional Court Cases in almost 50 years, that were being for the most part fought over Sociology, OrgTheory checked out, Dr. Cohen didn’t.

    When a Paul Amato, Sociology SuperStar confessed to making an error in judgement when agreeing to both be a Consultant AND be a Peer Reviewer to Regnerus, where did he speak? It was here on Dr. Philip Cohen’s blog, and Dr. Amato’s statement printed on Dr. Cohen’s blog, was used in Court in the DeBoer Court Case. Dr. Cohen is the *only one* who practiced *true* public sociology when it came to revealing manufactured anti gay parenting social science research. Others started, wrote a little something and then moved on, dropped it. Dr. Cohen didn’t, he kept analyzing the new facts as they were uncovered and reported on them, mostly in a manner that the general public could understand. Public Sociology about Important Public Issues.

    And Scott Rose and I, who have been literally banned from OrgTheory, where would your walled garden of Sociology be without us digging up the evidence? Showing you the filth in your profession. Some Sociologists cared enough about the profession and the harm it is capable of doing, to look at the facts we brought out and make their own analysis and report on it. OrgTheory was perfectly willing to let lies and deceit stand unexplored, they built the garden wall higher. They were fine with that, like monkeys who put their hands over their eyes and ears, hear no evil, see no evil.

    I am deeply appreciative, April DeBores & Jayne Rowse in Michigan are indebted to Dr. Cohen and to every other Social Scientist who took the time to comment on these L’Affaire Regnerus articles. You better believe the attorneys when preparing for trial read every article and read every one of your comments. So thank you.

    This Regnerus study is being used globally by the Haters as the reason to make brand new anti gay laws. I want to call one more time for the American Sociological Association to open an investigation.


  3. There must be some problem with your “percent of population covered” graph. Adding all those states in 2013 moved it from 13 to 27 percent. But the combined populations of all those states is WAY more than 14 percent of the US population. California alone is like 12 percent. A quick calculation puts the total of the 2013 states at about 24.5% of the population. Maybe California is missing from the calculation?


    1. Right! I had a typo in the California cell. Thanks for letting me know. That brings it up to 38% in 2013, 41% now (or, actually, yesterday – but I’m not taking Michigan off yet…)


    1. Well right now you can’t get married there, but the ban has been invalidated. I did take Utah off and they are in the same situation — except there the state has said they will not recognize the same-sex marriages there were legally performed before the stay was implemented. So, there is no right answer, but I have a little logic to leaving Michigan on there for now.


  4. One of the strongest results confirming the lack of influence of shared environment on children outcomes (rule of thumb: children outcome is decided half by genes and half by we-don’t-know-what (where “half” is not actual number, as in many cases it’s more like 80% of variance is explained by hereditary factors)).

    And, as I wrote here once, one of example how cognitive biases can cloud judgment. I knew that paternal styles, social class etc and all other examples of shared environment in the long turn have zero influence, and yet somehow I thought gay parents may have influence.


  5. As someone who was raised by a mother and father, and know the difference between the two and the value each brings… I am so disheartened to see those that actually believe that they don’t matter.

    Anyone can see that they do and millions of studies have shown that thy do…


      1. Well obviously you don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t have a degree in sociology after all, nor an extremist agenda to push, disguised with pseudo-scientific jargon. Query 1: if we are demolishing the meaning of marriage to include two members of the same sex, what is so magic about the number 2? If two men can marry, why not more than two men, or any 2 men and 2 women? Query 2: At what point in this mess does the concept of marriage and family become absolutely meaningless? Query 3: Is this abolition of family the end point for many SSM advocates?


Comments welcome (may be moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s