Anti-gay Family Research Council moves on to another discredited researcher

Mark Regenerus - FRC's newest discredited researcher?

For years, the Family Research Council was one of the many anti-gay groups who relied on the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron, a man who had been criticized for poor techniques methodologies, as well as dismissed or censured from organization such as the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association

FRC and other anti-gay groups used his bad research to prove negative theories about the lgbt community However, when Cameron was exposed for being the fraud that he is, FRC and other anti-gay groups slyly distanced themselves from his work.

According to a recent email I received from the organization, however, FRC may have found another discredited researcher it can use:

Yesterday, respected University of Texas professor Dr. Mark Regnerus spoke at FRC about "Stability and Change in Americans' Relationships." His presentation was based on an exhaustive survey he conducted of more than 15,700 people from every background and walk of life. The survey's findings showed some change in Americans' attitudes towards marriage, cohabitation, and homosexuality, but one of the most striking findings is that only 42 percent of the American people support same-sex marriage, a percentage that roughly mirrors FRC's survey, released earlier this week, showing that 53 percent of people agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.

Despite the sexual revolution of the past several decades, less than half (44 percent) of Americans believe cohabitation before marriage is a good thing. And as to infidelity, a whopping 74 percent say adultery is never acceptable. Dr. Regnerus noted that "so much is up for grabs" but made clear that religious commitment and the strength of one's family "track together."

"Marriage is not considered outdated," Dr. Regnerus observed, and "people regard marriage as concerning children." As the Supreme Court ponders same-sex "marriage" later this year, let's hope and pray their listening to those they have been appointed to represent -- the American people -- when it comes to redefining an institution still held in high regard throughout our society.

Regnerus is NOT respected. He is the author of a 2012 badly done, much rebuked, disputed, and discredited negative study on same-sex parenting.

Regnerus's 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.

According to The American Independent, by way of The Huffington Post, the organizations which funded Regnerus's work deliberately timed its release to influence the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality cases, a plan which failed miserably.

Last year, in ruling against Michigan's anti-marriage equality law, US District Judge Bernard Friedman also rebuked Regnerus, who was testifying for the state:

“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

Regnerus respected? Hardly. But he is just the right fit for the fakery of the Family Research Council.