 |
| Maggie Gallagher |
Last week, the New Civil Rights Movement posted the following:
Maggie Gallagher Touts Another Regnerus-Type Anti-Gay Parenting ‘Study’.
In the article, former NOM head Maggie Gallagher claims that this is "yet another study" which proves the so-called dangers of gay parenting. The point is to build up the credibility of the Mark Regnerus study, which the organization and other members of the religious right attempted to use in order to sway the Supreme Court in its argument involving DOMA and Prop 8.
That didn't work because the lgbt community, specifically the bloggers like myself, and watchdog sites like Equality Matters were quick to keep this from gaining credibility by pointing out its numerous, numerous faults. In addition, several of Regnerus' colleagues took him to task.
So with this so-called new study, Gallagher seems to be attempting to build up, or "prop up" the credibility of the discredited Regenerus study. However, the New Civil Rights Movement didn't let her get away with it:
Curiously, Gallagher does not mention that the study’s author, Douglas Allen (image), is on the board of NOM’s Ruth Institute, or that he has a rather ugly perception of LGBT people. (Surprise!)
Then there’s this.
“An article written by Professor Douglas W. Allen — who has previously claimed that lesbian relationships are unstable, unhealthy, and promiscuous – repeats a number of classic anti-gay talking points about the legal ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage,” Equality Matters wrote last year, “including the claim that allowing gay couples to marry will somehow result in more heterosexual divorces.”
Think I'm being a bit "paranoid" about the attempt by NOM to "prop up" Regnerus' discredited study on gay parenting? Check out this post by Jeremy Hooper.
Hooper is pointing out that Regnerus is attempting himself to prop up the second study by publishing a glowing article on it in on online magazine Public Discourse. Of course, Hooper conveniently points out that Public Discourse is a project run by the Witherspoon Institute, the organization who was one of the funders of Regnerus' original discredited mess to the tune of $695,000.
And let me add my little bit - The Witherspoon Institute is affiliated with NOM and the NOM's Ruth Institute. The Ruth Institute, you will remember from earlier in this post, is the same organization who just happens to have Douglas Allen (the author of the second anti-gay parenting study) on its board.
It's simply pitiful how easy it was to disassemble this latest shuck-and-jive by NOM and Gallagher. I almost miss the days when those attempting to spread anti-gay propaganda weren't so sloppy and transparent in their methods. It's as if they aren't even trying anymore.
Related post: What Media Outlets Should Know About The Latest Same-Sex Parenting Study - Equality Matters blisters this latest junk study by NOM.
I cannot wait to emigrate. The US has too many nuts in it.
ReplyDeleteFull disclosure: I am Canadian.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important that someone do a full professional review of this study and its methodology, as was done for the Regnerus study.
The results are highly suspicious. As has been noted, same sex marriage was enacted Canada-wide in 2005, so there would have been relatively few married same-sex couples in the 2006 census. Knowing the Canadian census, I don't know what reliable basis there would be in the 2006 data to identify children of same sex couples in stable relationships (but probably not married). Those children certainly exist... Canada is remarkably non-judgmental and inclusive... just not certain his sample identification (whatever it was) works.
The result is also fishy. 88% of Canadians age 24 to 65 have completed high school. I cannot fathom how children of LGBT families would be so disproportionately represented in the 12%. Makes no sense.
The funding for Allen's study should also be investigated, as well as the 'peer review' and publication process. Even though the Regnerus study has been thoroughly gutted, it is still quoted and paid attention to. As I write this, amicus briefs and speeches to state legislatures will include reference to this 'peer reviewed' study.
I just went through the long form census for 2006 in Canada, the source of Allen's data set. He's not measuring all children of these families, only the ones still living at home.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, special needs children have about a 35% graduation rate in Canada. They also tend to live at home longer. With GLBT families having twice as many special needs kids, this would also bring down graduation rates for those households by about 4% if my math is correct.
Also consider that it is only possible that any of these families had even common law status for a maximum of 6.5 years when the census took place, meaning nobody in the data set had spent even half their lives under a scenario where their family was legally protected.
I think the numbers are amazingly positive if these other factors are considered.