Why can't Maggie Gallagher stop lying about gay household studies?

Maggie Gallagher

Former National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher is the latest religious right figure to throw a distortion-filled hissy fit over the American Academy of Pediatricians’ recent support of marriage equality and same-sex households.

In a piece in today’s National Review, Gallagher repeats the lie that the AAP ignored scientific data in its statement:

There are at least four reviews or studies in peer-reviewed literature that contest the claim that children do equally well with same-sex parents. (Regnerus, Marks, Sirota, Allen). None of which are mentioned by the American Academy of Pediatricians in their endorsement of gay marriage. They cannot cite a single scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal showing children with gay parents are better off if their parents are considered legally married. None of this matters. How serious are we about children’s well-being in this country?

Gallagher is not telling the truth. Or to put it another way, she is lying through her teeth. The other studies she mentioned (Marks, Sirota, and Allen) are merely cocktail canape.

Loren Marks did not create a study of same-sex households but rather a review of studies looking at same-sex households. His piece was considered to be a companion piece to the Regnerus study.

Dr. Theodora Sirota actually complained about how her work was being distorted to make the case against same-sex families.

Douglas Allen is a Canadian economist and a professor of economics who actually supported Regnerus’ work.

The big prize here is the Regnerus study. And that is what Gallagher’s lie entails. The AAP did in fact look at Regnerus’ work and destroyed it. On pg. 1378 or pg 6 of the link, starting in the third column, the AAP lists four reasons why the Regnerus study cannot be considered credible in terms of looking at children raised in same-sex households.

Aside from Gallagher and Brian Brown of NOM, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family have also tried to push the lie that AAP ignored credible research on same-sex households. Maybe it’s just me but I detect a note of fear in regards to the immediacy of these claims.

And for the life of me, I can’t figure out why of all of the briefs or statements supporting marriage equality for tomorrow and Wednesday’s upcoming Supreme Court trials,  does there seem to be some fear regarding the AAP’s statement.

Whatever the case, the fear is hard to ignore. And that is good for us.

'The Advocate blisters NOM in huge expose' and other Monday midday news briefs

Dirty Money - The Advocate runs a HUGE and asskicking expose on NOM. Everyone repeat after me - "It's about time!"  

Will NOM condemn French “pro-family” violence, use of kids as human shields? - That's a good question but we all know the answer. Of course not. 

 Nevada State Senate Passes Trans-Inclusive Hate Crimes Bill - Who ever said this couldn't be done is a liar.  

Rob Portman's Gay Marriage Conversion Explained By His Son - Sen. Rob Portman's son, Will, talks about his father's change of heart on marriage equality and reminds us all about a father's love and concern for his son's well-being.  

My exchange with a NOM #marriagemarch speaker - A day in which Jeremy Hooper is not rhetorically tearing apart a NOM member or supporter is like a day without sunshine.

Focus on the Family talking head shows his ignorance, homophobia

Glenn T. Stanton

Religious right groups are continuing their sad attempts of calling out the American Academy of Pediatrics for formally supporting same-sex families.

 Last week, NOM, the Family Research Council, and the so-called American College of Pediatricians (a shell-group pushing anti-gay propaganda) spoke their piece. Recently, Glenn T. Stanton of Focus on the Family had some negative words about the AAP. He really should have kept his mouth shut:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued what appears to be a politically motivated statement suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents do just fine. In fact, the AAP goes so far as to suggest that children are more affected by the health of the relationship between the people raising them than by whether they are being raised by their own mother and father.

Sadly, the report is not rooted in social science but instead in a spirit of radical social activism, causing the authors to come to a fantastical and wishful conclusion.  Regarding this issue, we must consider two important things that we do know.

1)    The current research on how children fare developmentally in lesbian homes (there is virtually no research on male-headed families) has so many serious methodological limitations and problems that it cannot be counted on to draw any kind of reliable conclusion. The AAP’s own journal Pediatrics published a study (see p. 3 of study) in 2010 on this topic which makes this very clear to anyone who examines the methodology employed in reaching the study’s findings. This study’s weaknesses are also clearly displayed in the published explanation (see p. 274-275) of the study’s purpose and methodology. The research base they are employing is a house of cards.

2)    There is an absolute wealth of very strong, consistent and diverse research demonstrating that when children are raised in a home other than with the child’s own married mother and father, that child is significantly more likely to experience a host of serious physical, psychological, educational, and behavioral disadvantages. And no data exists that this is not also true of same-sex homes. It should be noted that this body of data is so convincing that it compelled both the Clinton and Bush administrations to launch dynamic and sweeping initiatives to promote and increase greater fatherhood involvement in the lives of their children. Fathers matter greatly in the daily lives of their children.

Let's break this down - Stanton's first point is a claim that one study looking at lesbian homes has many "methodological limitations and problems." But that point is irrelevant.  Stanton lists one study which he claims has methodological problems. To reach its conclusion, the AAP looked at several studies on same-sex parenting.

In his second point, Stanton makes the claim about the many studies which prove his point, but where are they? He doesn't even list one. Then he tries to get extremely tricky by saying that no data exists that says children  in same-sex households don't have physical, psychological, or education disadvantages. The problem with Stanton's turn of phrase here is how he implies that same-sex households must prove that they are not harmful to children. That makes as much sense as racists telling African-Americans that they have to prove that they deserve the right to equality.

Seems to me that if any person or group implies that same-sex households are negative towards children, then the burden of proof must fall on them. Furthermore in his second point, Stanton falsely connects the problem of absent fathers in the household to same-sex families.  That correalation simply does not exist.

And, believe it or not, when Stanton questioned the credibility of the AAP in his first point, he opened himself up. What about his credibility? Stanton is not a pediatrician and has no expertise in pediatrics whatsoever. However, as a member of Focus on the Family, he has written many negative opinions on lgbts in general, some accusing the gay community of nonexistent diseases. In the piece Why Homosexuality Falls Short of the Ideal, Stanton said:

Diseases such as hepatitis, Kaposi’s sarcoma, anal carcinoma and rectal infections involving gonorrhea, herpes simplex, syphilis and human papillomavirus are disproportionately seen among homosexual men when compared to heterosexual men and women. These diseases are extremely rare among married, monogamous men and women. In addition, because of the extremely high rate of incidence among homosexuals, a group of rare intestinal diseases have been grouped together under the title "gay bowel syndrome. 

There is no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome."

In addition, he once called marriage equality "a lie of Satan."

The rest of Stanton's piece is highly suspect:

The AAP been openly advocating for homosexual parenting since 2001. But such advocacy comes from a small group within the AAP who focus primarily on gay and lesbian issues. At the start of this advocacy, the leader of these efforts reported in an email to select members that the Academy “received more messages — almost of all them CRITICAL — from the members about the recent Policy Statement on [same-sex parent adoption] than it has EVER received on any other topic. (emphasis in original). She reported significant withdrawals and threats of withdrawals of membership.

She then explained that “this is a serious problem, as it means it will become harder to continue the work we have been doing to use the AAP as vehicle for positive change.” (emphasis added)

 I hope Stanton will forgive my suspicions regarding his last claim.

Then again, I don't care if he doesn't. I think he is not telling the truth.

I also think that when Stanton was attacking the credibility of the AAP in his first point, he was simply playing a game of transference.  The AAP is a 600,000 member body with a huge amount of credibility.

Stanton is simply a hack with a cross emblazoned in his mind which most likely deludes him into thinking any lie he tells is okay as long as it is a lie told against gays.

Just who would you believe?

Know Your LGBT History - The story of 3 minutes

The recent news that a professional wrestler was caught on camera screaming anti-gay slurs during a television taping neither shocked nor upset me because I chalked it up to a publicity stunt.

Those of us who watch pro wrestling are aware that for years, the lgbt community has served as fodder for storylines rich with stereotypes. I already covered two - The Exotic Adrian Street and the late Adorable Adrian Adonis.

However, the Story of 3 Minutes has to be the most offensively bizarre and bizarrely offensive gay storyline ever in the history of wrestling.  The Story of 3 Minutes began with an interrupted gay wedding, moved towards something called Hot Lesbian Action, and culminated with a man getting a massive rear jammed in his face.

It began with this World Wrestling Entertainment tag team, Chuck and Billy:

Via a storyline in 2002, the two wrestlers fell in love and decided to have a commitment ceremony live in television.  During the ceremony, the wrestlers admitted that it was merely a publicity stunt which wen too far. That's when the story really got strange. Allow the recap to tell the story:

Billy & Chuck with Stephanie McMahon vs... by Jokerwilds

So it all culminated with a match at a pay-per-view which featured Chuck and Billy vs. Three Minute Warning. If Chuck and Billy won, Eric Bischoff would have to kiss Stephanie McMahon's rear. If Three Minute Warning won, Stephanie would have to engage in HLA (hot lesbian action) with everyone in the arena and television watching. I won't show the match, but Chuck and Billy lost. What happened next? Well see for yourself:

 
Stephanie McMahon - 'Hot Lesbian Action... by dido67

One wonders what would have happened had the lgbt community had the power of the internet which we do now. 

Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Man suing for custody because ex-wife has a gay friend' and other Friday midday news briefs

Husband Threatens Custody Suit After Ex-wife Befriends 'Known Homosexual' - THIS is a unmitigated mess. A man is threatening to sue for sole custody because his ex-wife has (wait for it) a gay man for her friend. That's it. Nothing more. 

 GOP Chairman Tries To Appeal To Gay Voters By Bragging About His ‘Great Marriage’ - Uh how about pushing for US to have great marriages. That could help.  

ENDA under review prior to April reintroduction - ENDA is coming. The question is are WE ready for it? 

This weekend: FRC promotes NOM's March for Marriage by telling congregants gays aren't going to heaven- It's junk like this which destroys people's faith in God. Don't fall for it. When someone throws the Good Book at you, ALWAYS consult the original author. He always tells you a different story.  

Why The ‘Ex-Gay’ Industry Is Going Under - Cause they are liars.

Religious right groups attempt to create 'new' truth about gays

Yesterday, the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics formally endorsed marriage equality and spoke up for same-sex families:

On the basis of this comprehensive review of the literature regarding the development and adjustment of children whose parents are the same gender, as well as the existing evidence for the legal, social, and health benefits of marriage to children, the AAP concludes that it is in the best interests of children that they be able to partake in the security of permanent nurturing and care that comes with the civil marriage of their parents,without regard to their parents’ gender or sexual orientation.

Marriage equality can help reduce social stigma faced by lesbian and gay parents and their children, thereby enhancing social stability, acceptance, and support. Children who are raised by married parents benefit from the social and legal status that civil marriage conveys to their parents.

The organization also took the time to denounce the infamous Mark Regnerus study. Naturally religious right groups are going out of their head to denounce AAP for this.

The National Organization for Marriage - which has no expertise in pediatrics - said the following:

The AAP has not conducted any new research to justify their preposterous conclusion, adding evidence that it is a political act, not a scientific one. Instead, they have reviewed a series of studies produced by gay children. As was reported by respected Louisiana State University researcher Loren Marks, virtually every study to date has involved small samples and hand-selected participants. None of them utilize large-sample, randomly selected participants — a key requirement to rigorous research.

One recent large-scale random sample study that has been produced by University of Texas researchers found that those raised in a same-sex household fared worse than those raised in intact heterosexual families on two-thirds of outcomes measured. Nowhere in the AAP statement do they address the confounding scientific evidence by Regnerus, Marks, Sirota and Allen — all published in peer-reviewed journals. The AAP simply ignores them.

But NOM is not being truthful. According to Think Progress, the AAP report not only cited studies but also debunked the Regnerus study:

The full report cites dozens of studies about same-sex parenting and even takes time to debunk the politically manipulated Regnerus study for not actually assessing data on committed same-sex couples raising children.

Now the Family Research Council, in complaining about the AAP statement, took a different road. The group not only cited the debunked Regnerus study, but  also another medical association who had an opposite opinion of the AAP. This medical association is the American College of Pediatricians and its statement said in part:

“The College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from “politically correct” groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected,” says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians. “The AAP ignores generations of evidence of health risks to children in advocating for the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage and child-rearing.”

First of all, you should know that the American College of Pediatricians is not a legitimate medical association. It is actually a shell-group whose purpose is to give anti-gay distortions a degree of credibility. In fact, the report link in the words "evidence of health risks,  Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change? is a piece I refuted years ago. The report contained outdated and cherry-picked studies. Editor's note - the report seems to have been updated, adding new information such as the Regnerus study, but seeing how the Regnerus study has been discredited, it changes nothing.

In addition, three years ago, the American College of Pediatricians attempted to introduce a brochure in several high schools which made wild, inaccurate accusations about the gay community, including:

1. Gay men are disease ridden sex animals who enjoy playing with feces,

2. Lesbians are equally diseased and irresponsible,

3. Homosexuality is just a changeable condition.

So no one, except the religious right and their supporters, actually takes the American College of Pediatricians seriously.

But it does illustrate one annoying point about the religious right. When the truth contradicts their claims, they simply attempt to create a new truth.

Combat the USA Today's love letter to the religious right

Today, an article in the USA Today sent me farther north than I would prefer to be.

The article, Gay marriage? These voices say 'No' and explain why, focused on those who oppose marriage equality, i.e. organizations such as the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage and folks like Brian Brown and Tony Perkins.

Nothing wrong with that. And though I was not happy about the slant of the article - i.e. Brown, Perkins and company are portrayed as  "defenders of traditional marriage" - I could have dealt with the slant if the writer, Richard Wolf, looked as if he actually wrote the article.

If you will forgive me for being blunt, the way this article was written looked as if Wolf handed a series of questions to these folks while telling them to write anything and he would "pretty it up" later.

In other words, this isn't an good article. It's an incomplete piece of nonsense which is highlighted by the fact that Wolf glossed over the tactics of these groups. He pretty much omits the fact that these groups and individuals have possessed a long-term animus against the gay community.

I am not kidding.  Wolf writes about Brown and NOM and William Owens and his group, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, without mentioning NOM's gay vs. black strategy. He doesn't even mention the fact that Owens is on NOM's payroll and CAAP was attempting to undermine Obama's support in the African-American community while NOM was supporting Romney.

Wolf talks about Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, making sure to note that awful shooting last year. But he omits comments by FRC staffers expressing the desire to deport gays and to criminalize homosexuality. He omits the lies, junk science, and cherry-picking of studies FRC routinely engages in to demonize the lgbt community. He doesn't even mention Perkins' comments comparing us to pedophiles and terrorists.

Basically, every organization and person spotlighted in Wolf's article has a history of defaming the gay community in the same manner racists defame African-Americans, but Wolf fails to mention these important details.

Wolf's article is sad but it is also totally indicative of what the lgbt community has to deal with when it generally comes to the mainstream media and their articles about religious right groups. Too often, the lies and tactics used against us - the comparisons to pedophilia, the studies taken out of context, the ugly omission of our families and children, and the reduction of the entirety of our lives to a sex act - are either glossed over or not referred to at all.

And religious right groups get a free pass to plead Christian ennui while they hide their true motives and actions.

I say this time, we don't allow this situation to pass without comment.  On the right side of the link to the article is a way to contact Wolf. I say that as many of us as possible write this man and tell him that his article omitted a huge amount.  Please go to this page and leave a comment about Wolf's article on the comments and clarifications section. The organizations he spotlighted are not groups attempting to "protect" so-called traditional marriage. They are, in fact, bigoted groups willing to hide their homophobia behind religious beliefs.

Be nice but make sure to include a copy of GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project so in the future, he knows who he is dealing with.

And maybe a copy of How They See Us wouldn't hurt.