Archive for March, 2014

Loren Marks is a  professor at the Louisiana State University School of Social Work and a devout Mormon. He testified as an expert witness for the State in the 2014 Michigan trial on that State’s same sex marriage ban.

Of his testimony and that of three other State experts, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” In summary, he wrote “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”

Marks authored the controversial 2012 study, ” Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting.”  In this study, he looked at 59 published studies that the APA used in 2005 where they concluded that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” The Marks study is a criticism of the APA, the studies it used and its conclusion, rather than original research.

I was unable to find out who paid for this study. It is not listed on his Grants page on the LSU web site. The latest information I could find was a journalist’s mention of making an Inquiry to LSU and not getting a response.

Marks was called to testify in the California Proposition 8 trial, but ultimately they decided not to use his testimony. The reason was that he had not actually read the studies he used to argue against same sex parenting. He was forced to admit during deposition that he had not looked at research that evaluated actual gay and lesbian parents, that he cherry picked data, that his conclusions about same-sex parenting were not supported by evidence, that he fudged the meaning of biological parents to include adoptive parents, and that he had a bias against same sex parenting long before he began his research.

There are a lot of other problems with Mark’s study, including the fact that it looks back at a 7 year old finding of the APA after mountains of additional studies have been done. In Mark’s criticism, he claims that the 1996 Sarantakos study did indeed find a poorer outcome for children of gay parents and that the APA failed to include it.. He does not include what the APA actually said about the Sarantakos study:

A study from Australia (Sarantakos, 1996) has been cited as demonstrating deficits among children raised by gay and lesbian parents in Australia compared to children raised by heterosexual couples. The anomalous results reported by this study–which contradict the accumulated body of research findings in this field–are attributable to idiosyncrasies in its sample and methodologies and are therefore not reliable. An expert reading of the Sarantakos article reveals that certain characteristics of its methodology and sample are highly likely to have skewed the results and rendered them an invalid indicator of the well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents in at least three respects: (1) the children raised by gay and lesbian parents experienced unusually high levels of extreme social ostracism and overt hostility from other children and parents, which probably accounted for the former’s lower levels of interaction and social integration with peers (see pp. 25-26); (2) nearly all indicators of the children’s functioning were based on subjective reports by teachers, who, as noted repeatedly by the author, may have been biased (see pp. 24, 26, & 30); and (3) most or all of the children being raised by gay and lesbian parents, but not the children being raised by heterosexual married parents, had experienced parental divorce, which is known to correlate with poor adjustment and academic performance. Indeed, although the differences Sarantakos observed among the children are anomalous in the context of research on parents’ sexual orientation, they are highly consistent with findings from studies of the effects of parental divorce on children (see, e.g., Amato, 2001, and Amato & Keith, 1991). Children Australia is a regional journal that is not widely known outside Australia. As such, it cannot be considered a source upon which one should rely for understanding the state of scientific knowledge in this field, particularly when the results contradict those that have been repeatedly replicated in studies published in better known scientific journals. In summary, the Sarantakos study does not undermine the consistent pattern of results reported in other empirical studies addressing this topic.

While knowledgeable in his field, his admitted animus and his close association with the anti-gay advocates like the national Organization for Marriage make him appear to be more of an anti-gay activist than an honest researcher. His paper was made available to the House Republican team defending DOMA long before it was officially published. It does appear that Marks and Regnerus coordinated their publishing efforts to provide anti-gay ammunition in the then upcoming political and legal battle over DOMA. The papers were published simultaneously in “Social Science Research” and yet Marks cites Regnerus’ as yet unpublished work in his paper, clearly coordinating their efforts under the editorship of James Wright, who has ties to the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage.

Keep in mind that the judge in the Michigan case specifically mentioned  that he believed that the Regnerus study was funded and done quickly for political purposes. A New York Times article revealed that the Regnerus study was conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation and funded by the anti-gay Witherspoon Foundation.

Darren Sherkat conducted an internal audit of both the Marks’ and Regnerus’ studies. He called Marks’ paper an “argumentative review paper,” where no original data were collected or analyzed, nor was a systematic meta-analysis conducted.” He concluded that is was “inappropriate” for Social Science Research to publish Marks’ article because it was not original quantitative research. He was even harder on Regnerus.

A good example of Marks’ credibility comes in his claim during the trial that the unanimous findings of the APA on same sex parenting was the result of brainwashing.

Joseph Price is an economics professor at Brigham Young University. He testified as an expert witness for the State in the 2014 Michigan trial on that State’s same sex marriage ban.

Of his testimony and that of three other State experts, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” In summary, he wrote “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”

Price has done respected research in the past, but his apparent animus against gays and his entrenchment in a religious based University noted for its animus against gays does make his work on gay issues worthy of additional scrutiny.

His work also seems to be strongly influenced by his religion. His 2012 study with Richard Patterson “Pornography, Religion, and the Happiness Gap: Does Pornography Affect the Actively Religious Differently?” published in the Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion comes to the conclusion that the cost of happiness from looking at pornography is greater for the more religiously faithful. That seems similar to his anti-gay research- come up with a conclusion and then create research to support it. Not exactly good science.

His 2014 study with Kirk Doran, “Pornography and Marriage” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, seems similar. It found that “adults who had watched an X-rated movie in the past year were more likely to be divorced, more likely to have had an extramarital affair, and less likely to report being happy with their marriage or happy overall. We also found that, for men, pornography use reduced the positive relationship between frequency of sex and happiness. Finally, we found that the negative relationship between pornography use and marital well-being has, if anything, grown stronger over time, during a period in which pornography has become both more explicit and more easily available.” For a devout anti-pornography Mormon, this seems like the only possible conclusion he could have come to.

When asked at trial why same-sex couples shouldn’t be afforded the same benefits as opposite-sex couples, Price actually testified that the reason was because “Women have a domesticating effect on men.” He does not see to have an agenda on keeping single heterosexual men from raising children, though.

Price is not a disinterested researcher. He signed an amicus brief  along with Mark Regnerus and Douglas Allen, filed in support of the Supreme Court upholding California’s Proposition 8. He was involved with Douglas Allen’s now widely discredited graduation rate study, whose invalidated conclusions he cited in his testimony.

The only independent research on the issue he has done is a study with Corbin Miller titled “The Number of Children Being Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents .” It comes to no conclusions about outcomes, but by using a different methodology concerning bisexuality (and other methodologies), it comes in with a lower estimate than other studies. The study states that there are “190,000 children being raised by gay or lesbian couples, 83% of which are being raised by lesbian couples and 17% by gay couples. In addition, there are another 150,000 children being raised by a lesbian single parent and 60,000 being raised by a gay single parent. This is much smaller than other estimates. According to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, a more current estimate is somewhere between 1 and 9 million children have at least one parent who is gay or lesbian.  From reading the paper, it almost seems like their goal was to get the number down as small as possible and still have a shred of credibility.

Price was one of the weakest links in that he brought little of his own work as an expert. Like the others who testified for the State in the Michigan trial, he appeared to have a very clear agenda that trumped his integrity as a researcher, and led the judge to give his testimony little credence.

Douglas Allen was  a witness in the 2014 case in Michigan to overturn their anti-same sex marriage law. He is a Canadian economist who is associated with both the Ruth Institute and the National Organization for Marriage, both strongly anti-gay organizations.

He studies family as it relates to economics, including the concept of sexual economics (the idea that the disparity in sexual desire between men and women drives an economic exchange between men and women where all women trade sex for economic benefit).

While he may be a fine economist in many areas, his strong conservative and anti-gay religious views make his family studies somewhat questionable. Under oath in the Michigan case, he testified that he believed that all unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell. That makes it very difficult to be an impartial researcher on this subject. The irony is that Allen testified repeatedly that his personal opinions had no impact on his conclusions, and yet, for him to be wrong, his God would also have to be wrong.

Allen testified that his recent study published in Review of Economics of the Household, showed that children raised by gay couples graduate high school at 65% of the rate of the children of traditional couples. While Canada has had same sex marriage since 2005, Allen’s data only went up to 2006, ignoring many years of legal same sex marriage. Legal same sex marriage is the real argument- that it provides more stability and should provide better outcomes. If you look primarily at couples who have been unable to marry and are raising children, you might expect worse outcomes for children that might be improved with legal same sex marriage.

As with Mark Regnerus, who also testified in the Michigan case, his conclusions have been strongly criticized by other researchers. He stood by them, though, with the rather surprising claim that his results may be better than those from American research that shows the opposite conclusions because Canadians are more likely to be honest and Canada is a more tolerant place.

According to sociologist Phillip N. Cohen, the Allen study has many of the same flaws as the Regnerus study, and its conclusions are meaningless. While it starts with a large sample, the actual number of gay and lesbian households is relatively small. Allen claims that the law does not allow him to release the actual sample size. Cohen estimates that it is probably about 85 gay father children and around 194 lesbian mother children- not an impressive sample size at all.

The study looked at children 17 to 22 years old. That means that some of his sample are still in high school and have not even graduated yet. There is no analysis comparing the people in his sample to the population of 17-22 year-olds who don’t live with their parents.  Could it be, as suggested by Kristi Williams, that gay or lesbian parents are more successful at launching their children from home that heterosexual parents? In Allen’s study, that would be a sign of a bad family outcome, according to Cohen. This one problem alone makes the conclusions of the study questionable.

The study compares apples and oranges- gay parents versus married parents, instead of the more comparable gay married parents versus heterosexual married parents. As such, it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether gay people should allowed to be married, since they are already raising children and one would expect a better outcome with the stability of marriage.

The statistic, “children of gay and lesbian parents are 65% as likely to graduate” is also misleading. The graduation rate, assuming that any of his numbers are accurate, is actually just 6 percentage points different, although it sounds much worse as an odds ratio the way he uses it.

Allen said in an interview:

Indeed, mothers may provide some parenting services that a father cannot provide, and fathers may provide parenting services that mothers cannot. These services may be necessary for girls but not necessary for boys. For example, I’ve been told by medical people that when a biological father is present in the home, daughters begin menstruation at an older age. Later menstruation is likely correlated with delayed sexual activity, etc., and this may lead to a better likelihood of high school completion.

His study, though, shows that daughters raised by gay parents have the worse outcomes of the four combinations. He can’t even keep his own research straight (no pun intended). And while it is surprisingly true that research shows that girls may delay menstruation in fatherless families, it is only by a month or two. Is it any wonder that Allen’s fellow sociologists have little respect for his conclusions.

Mark Regnerus was one of the key defense experts to testify in the 2014 Michigan lawsuit to overturn their ban on same sex marriage. The problem is, he is a totally discredited sociologist accused by his fellow sociologists of dishonesty. Before his testimony, his own University of Texas in Austin disavowed his conclusions on same sex marriage, as did the chairman of his own department. The head of the sociology department also distanced himself from Regnerus’ study. The American Medical Association and the President of the American Sociological Association put their names to a document which called Regnerus’ methodology scientifically unsound. Over 200 Sociology Ph.D.’s and MDs signed a letter calling for the formal retraction of the study from the journal in which it was published, Social Science Research.

Regnerus’ study on gay marriage was funded largely by the anti-gay Witherspoon Foundation, for which he was paid over $800,000. They specifically wanted the study completed before the same sex marriage issue came before the Supreme Court.

In case you are unfamiliar with the study, it concluded that same sex marriages provide worse outcomes for children. That is a big deal since 30 years of similar research does not come to that conclusion at all. The study, despite having a large sample size, had numerous problems. By looking at same sex relationships, it never clearly defines them. Even worse and more shocking, it does not include a study of children who grew up in gay or lesbian households. Wait, would that not be the whole point? Yes, which is why the conclusions he comes to are not considered particularly valid by his fellow social scientists.

Since relying on his own discredited study would have been a poor plan, he used the strategy that many anti-gay organizations are coalescing around. Despite those 30 years of research in over 100 studies showing that kids of gay parents turn out fine and often better than fine, he made the claim that the science is inconclusive, and that we just don’t know enough yet. Why risk the children because of what we don’t know. This argument ignores the reality that gay people raise children with or without the right to marry, and that the child raising situation is a lot more secure if they have the right to be married. It is a bad argument, but they are left with few rational arguments as to why same sex marriage should be banned. He sounds just like the creationists, claiming that over 100 years of research on evolution is still inconclusive or just plain wrong. All those other scientists are incorrect because my data shows otherwise.

His key admission was that he would oppose same sex marriage even if studies showed that it was equivalent to opposite sex marriage in terms of child outcome. He also said that he opposed denying marriage to heterosexuals in categories known to have poor child outcomes.

Regnerus  does not just do research on same sex marriage (although technically, he didn’t do that in this study.) He looks at sexual practices in general, and the unifying theme is that all that stuff should be done only within the sanctity of a monogamous and very heterosexual marriage.

Just last February (2014), he made this astonishing claim:

If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere, and not a few husbands, to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship. Discussion of openness and sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men’s sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and in the American imagination.  It may be spun as empowering women, but it sure doesn’t feel that way.

Of course, there was no empirical data to support any of this, and it assumes that practicing anal sex is a bad thing. In many cultures and especially before the pill, anal sex was a common form of birth control, but nuance like that is probably a bit much for Regnerus.

In December of 2014, he presented his theory that watching porn makes men more open to the idea of gay marriage. This was promoted through the Witherspoon Foundation.

He wrote:

Marriage has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to procreation; it involves developing and sharing one’s body and whole self in the way best suited for honorable parenthood — among other things, permanently and exclusively. Given that I study the sexual and relationship lives of emerging adults, I couldn’t help but note the contrast between this description of marital sexuality and how sex is portrayed in modern pornography. Indeed, the latter redirects sex — by graphic depiction of it — away from any sense of it as a baby-making activity. Porn also undermines the concept that in the act of sexual intercourse, we share our ‘body and whole self permanently and exclusively.’ On the contrary, it reinforces the idea that people can share their bodies but not their inmost selves, and that they can do so temporarily and (definitely) not exclusively without harm.

I don’t know that porn accomplishes this alone, but he is right- one can have temporary sexual relationships without harm, assuming that one practices safe sex and avoids pregnancy. And maybe, by demystifying sex and making it a less fearful thing, and showing that sex is sex and what gays do, penis in mouth, penis in anus, is not really different from what heterosexual couples do, porn does contribute to young support for gay marriage. That is not a leap most sociologists would make, though, and the biggest problem is that he sees that as a bad thing.

In March 2014, the Austin Insti­tute for the Study of Family and Culture, which seems to focus primarily on Regnerus’ work, released an animated video co-produced by Regnerus called “The Economics of Sex.” Its primary assumption is that we are living back in the 1950s. Men want sex more than women, so women use sex as a bargaining chip. The pill made sex cheap because women were better able to avoid pregnancy, so in economic terms lower costs = more supply = lower prices. It makes the argument that women should be more responsible with their sexuality by demanding a higher price for sexual activity. There seems to be no acknowledgement that this way of thinking turns all women into whores, but maybe that is what he already thinks. All women have to do is stop giving sex away, demand marriage in exchange for it (and whatever else they can get out of the deal I assume) and marriage rates will skyrocket.

This video is both bad economics and bad sociology. Unless you specify the levels of disparity in demand, which they never do, the whole argument is meaningless. The truth is, though, that the differences in levels of desire are greater in either gender than they are when comparing genders so the desire gap is not actually meaningful in any useful way. It is key to many of his arguments, though.

What about lesbians, though? Where do they fit it in the sex economic mix? Technically, in his model they do not even exist. Maybe that is why he thinks they should not raise children, as who wants non-existent parents?  Regnerus  looks to Anthony Giddens in his Transformation of Intimacy when he said in a recent speech; “Giddens draws an arrow from contraception to sexual malleability to the expansion of homosexuality.” So the pill is making people gay.

This economic model is nothing new for Regnerus. He wrote this for Slate in 2011:

And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren’t asking for much in return these days—the market “price” of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.

His economic theories on sex and the decrease in marriage come from the incredibly sexist writings of Baumeister and Vohs (and Baumeister’s other collaborator Mendoza). Their real argument is that the actual problem is with women gaining equality, where they do not have to rely entirely on men for economic security. This is the key to the whole thing, but I suspect Regnerus realizes that part of it won’t go over so well.

Wendy Simonds, Ph.D. is a Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Sociology at Georgia State University. She had this to say about Regnerus and the controversy over his same sex marriage study:

I am not at all surprised by this whole situation, given Regnerus’s previous book on teen sexuality. In that book, he and his co-author present without criticism “research” of others in support of the notion that women who have unprotected sex (with the same partner of course) are less likely to be depressed than women who don’t *because* of the semen in their vaginas (imagine the pharmacological possibilities!!) as well as “research” in support of the notion that women regret abortions. Meanwhile, they also “show” that the more sexual partners young women have, the worse off they are in terms of mental health — while of course the same is not true of young men.

I read a lot of Regnerus’ writings for this piece, and it seems that the over-arching theme is his attempt as a staunch and very conservative Catholic to promote official Catholic positions on contraception, premarital sex, homosexuality and a more limited role for women (which studies show most Catholics ignore) by justifying them through social science. His “science” is of the most dubious sort, though, designed to find a specific conclusion. Going through and refuting it all is a major and rather tedious task. He fits in well in the rogues gallery of anti-sex crackpots.