 |
| Mark Regnerus |
On Tuesday, I pointed out a similarity between why social media conservatives lost marriage equality cases in court with their recent loss to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth in Arkansas:
. . .far right conservatives using their money and resources to gain legislative and referendum victories which are eventually dismantled in our courts because said victories were built on faulty foundations. In other words, it's easy to scare or persuade people into voting the way you want but in a court of law you have to provide facts proving your point. And far right conservatives simply can't do it.
As it turns out, there was another huge similarity which I overlooked. In striking down the Arkansas ban, U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. listed a number of reasons why he felt the law was unconstitutional. One had to do with the witnesses the state used to prove its case.
According to NPR:
The court found three of the state's witnesses had been recruited at a meeting of the Christian advocacy organization Alliance Defending Freedom held specifically to gather witnesses trained in various fields that would be willing to testify in favor of laws passed that limit transgender care. "While there is nothing nefarious about an organization recruiting witnesses to testify for their cause, it is clear from listening to the testimony that Professor Mark Regnerus, Dr. Paul Hruz, and Dr. [Patrick] Lappert were testifying more from a religious doctrinal standpoint rather than that required of experts," the ruling reads.
Regnerus stands out for two reasons. For one, his testimony was so abysmal that Moody questioned its relevancy. According to The Arkansas Democrat Gazette:
. . . His testimony was meandering, repetitive and often confusing as U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr. struggled at times to understand the relevance of his testimony to the matter at hand. Regnerus said he had reviewed numerous works by other researchers. He said had observed a bias among providers treating transgender patients, a bias toward affirmation rather than treatment of underlying mental or emotional conditions. The sociologist also testified that researchers had faced pressure to agree with treatment models based on affirmation and that a number of groups exist that "don't feel like they have the freedom to object.""There is significant concern that there's a rush to treat minors," Regnerus said, but when asked what research he had done in the area, he continued to point to the work of others that had fallen under heavy criticism."All I'm hearing is some people are forming opinions which are causing debate," Moody said at one point. "All he's telling me is there was a report and there was back flow and that shows there was criticism ... What does it have to do with the decision I have to make?"
Regnerus has faced this kind of disdain before. 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 were 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.
In ruling against Michigan's anti-marriage equality law in 2014, US District Judge Bernard Friedman also rebuked Regnerus, who was testifying for the state:
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 were 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.
In ruling against Michigan's anti-marriage equality law in 2014, 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.”
Regenerus is more proof that social conservatives are retooling their anti-gay tactics to undermine trans equality. He is also more proof of how they fail when their tactics run head-on into the brick wall of truth.
