 |
| Peter Sprigg of FRC |
It never ceases to amaze me how low Family Research Council spokesman Peter Sprigg will stoop in various columns, pieces, and posts to deceive people in regards to situations about the lgbt community. I've written about Sprigg's
lies and
distortions on
numerous occasions.
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.
