|Peter Sprigg of FRC|
Yesterday in anticipation of the four six cases which will decide the fate of marriage equality in four states, he attempted a rehash of the Michigan case earlier this year which overturned the anti-marriage equality law in that state. He also attempted to tarnish the reputation of a federal judge:
In the piece Appeals Court Should Correct Judge Friedman’s Botched Social Science which appeared in The Daily Caller, Sprigg claimed that the federal judge, Bernard Friedman, who ruled against Michigan's anti-marriage equality law, was biased against those defending that law.
Sprigg offers no concrete proof, only vapid innuendos:
Judge Friedman was fawning in his adulation of the pro-homosexual witnesses, describing each as “fully credible” or “highly credible” and attaching either “considerable weight” or “great weight” to their testimony.
On the other hand, he simply dismissed the other witnesses. Loren Marks (whose published critique of the pro-homosexual parenting studies is, in reality, devastating) was described as “largely unbelievable.”
Then Sprigg proceeded to defend Michigan's witness, Professor Mark Regnerus. Regnerus, as many of you all know, is the author of the study which claimed that lgbt households are not a good place to raise children.
And if you all know that, then you know that the study was discredited by many sources, including the American Sociological Association, over 200 researchers, the sociology department of Regenerus's own university (University of Texas - Austin) for its multitude of errors, including the fact that it did not actually compare married gay parents to married heterosexual parents and Regnerus admitted that the study did not establish a connection between negative outcomes and same-sex parenting.
There was also the fact that Regnerus received funding for the study from two groups, the Witherspoon Institute and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, who are actively attempting to stop marriage equality from becoming a reality.
Of course Sprigg omitted all of this in his fawning defense of Regnerus and his flawed work. Instead, Sprigg made the following totally inaccurate statement:
Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, Regnerus put together a representative, population-based sample that was large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. He also examined forty outcome measures, not just one or a handful. Because of these and other methodological improvements over previous studies, the Regnerus study stands as the gold standard in the field.