Regnerus: The Judge Was Biased Against Me


Mark Regnerus is completely ignoring the substantive critique of his ridiculous study and just claiming that the judge in the Michigan marriage case and pretty much the entire academic world is biased against. Because Jesus or something. He claims to just not understand why no one is taking him seriously.

Dr. Mark Regnerus, whose conclusions about same-sex “marriage” were dismissed in last week’s ruling on the matter by Judge Bernard Friedman, is fighting back.

“I frankly don’t understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised,” Regnerus told LifeSiteNews in an e-mail. Regnerus says Friedman “chose to privilege certain scholars as well as research that leaned on self-selected samples.”

Because at least the self-selected samples are actually comparable to the families they’re being measured against. And there are many longitudinal studies that actually compare the outcomes of families headed by gay and straight people, both individuals and couples. Regnerus’ study does not make such a comparison. It compares intact families headed by straight couples to broken families where one member of the couple was gay and hiding that fact. No credible sociologist would ever think that was a valid comparison.

Regnerus’ study found that children raised in the homes of homosexuals do statistically worse than those children raised in homes with heterosexual parents. According to Regnerus, “it’s as if raising standard methodological issues on this subject is just unwelcome today, unless it’s clear that you are friendly to the political goals of the same-sex marriage movement.”

*headdesk* Talk about projection. At no point does Regnerus even attempt to engage the substantive criticism of his methodology.

Comments

  1. John Pieret says

    To be fair, the judge was doubtless biased against him. Pretty much all judges don’t like alleged “experts” who come into their courts and try to pass off bullshit as scientific results. Judge Friedman, however, didn’t get this bias until he had all the facts and could see what crap Regnerus was peddling.

  2. Chiroptera says

    In a way, he’s right. It appears that (at least in the opinion of the US “new” media), unbiased means always presenting both sides of an issue, even when one side is completely irrational, unfactual, and couter to common standards of decency.

    “I frankly don’t understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised,” Regnerus told LifeSiteNews in an e-mail.

    Regnerus missoke. He’s actually referring to the very fake concerns his research raised. The very real concerns raised by his research is how shoddy research can sometimes pass peer review and get published.

  3. Abby Normal says

    The mind of Regnerus: I don’t understand how the Judge could ignore my study. It perfectly confirms what I expected it would about those people, so it’s obviously accurate.

  4. Chiroptera says

    Holy crap! Three typos in my last comment.

    (1) US “news” media

    (2) counter to common standards of decency

    (3) Regnerus misspoke

  5. cptdoom says

    Anyone who has done any kind of social science research must be aware of the common means of dealing with the real methodological issues such research entails. Because you cannot conduct scientific experiments, as in chemistry or biology, researchers often have to deal with data that are less than optimal. All research on same-sex parenting to date has dealt with the problem of small numbers by using matched control studies – comparing families headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents who have similar educational and professional backgrounds. This is a very standard approach.

    Therefore Regnerus is simply being disingenuous when he claims the research to date is hopelessly flawed and his “study” represents some new finding on parenting quality. Certainly as same-sex parenting becomes more common, population-based studies, like the one Regnerus tried to do, will become possible. But any researcher worth his tenure would know if you try a population-based approach and cannot find statistically significant numbers, you either widen your sample or abandon the approach. Regnerus instead decided to just make sh*t up by arbitrarily assigning people to his “gay father” or “lesbian mother” groups based on data that could not be independently verified (whether the parent had a same-sex relationship). The only reason to do this is to cook the books and create the result he wanted, and good on Judge Friedman for seeing through his bull.

  6. says

    I’ve got a light workload from now until–forever, in terms of getting paid, I mean–so if somebody wants to buy me a plane ticket and put me up in some down at the heels dump like the Lake Austin Spa (please ensure that the mini-bar has several 750’s of Grey Goose) and some walkin’round cash, I’ll explain it to him.

  7. Pierce R. Butler says

    Chiroptera @ # 4 – also noun-verb agreement…

    (But no sentence fragments!)

  8. sinned34 says

    You can’t pass off fabricated data as unbiased research in a court of law anymore in an attempt to justify discrimination against people you don’t like? Thanks, Obama!

  9. matty1 says

    I’m wondering how you do social science without some level of ‘self selection’. Surely it would be unethical to research people without their knowledge and consent, which means they are selecting to be in the study. I’m sure there must be ways to minimise problems this causes for the results but don’t see how you can get away from the basic issue.

  10. Michael Heath says

    John Pieret writes:

    To be fair, the judge was doubtless biased against him. Pretty much all judges don’t like alleged “experts” who come into their courts and try to pass off bullshit as scientific results. Judge Friedman, however, didn’t get this bias until he had all the facts and could see what crap Regnerus was peddling.

    I don’t think biased is the word to describe the judge’s conclusion of the Regnerus study. I would instead use the phrase, ‘justifiably contemptuous’.

  11. sinned34 says

    D.C. Wilson @ 12:

    I was channeling the way conservatives blame everything on Obama:

    “My cellphone has bad reception. Thanks Obama!”
    “I didn’t notice my milk went off until after I finished eating my bowl of cereal. Thanks Obama!”
    “I stubbed my toe, it got infected, and I died because my Republican state government refused Medicaid expansion. Thanks Obama!”

  12. raven says

    Regnerus’ real enemy isn’t the judge. It’s the same problem fundies run into every day.

    It’s reality.

    It is all reality’s fault that the world doesn’t fit their mythology.

  13. eric says

    “I frankly don’t understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised,”

    Because, in America, we do not forbid people from marrying based on an evaluation of their potential competency as parents. Your research is irrelevant to the legal question (as well as being wrong).

  14. caseloweraz says

    Anyone who loses in a court decision can make the same claim, with just as much justification.

    But they don’t — for good reason. Thanks, reason.

  15. Michael Heath says

    d.c. wilson writes:

    Ironically, thanks Reagan, since he appointed Friedman.

    I would argue President Reagan deserves very little credit. In 1988 conservatives hadn’t yet descended into depths of lunatic incompetency where they currently reside. The tide had already begun to turn on judicial nominations given Reagan’s nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor and the rise of so-called originalism; but not sufficient enough to infect the process down to district judicial nominations.

    Instead we should be applauding Michigan’s two U.S. Senators. Back then Senators played a larger role in sponsoring federal judicial nominations, without the pressure they’re now under by: party leadership, the majority holding power in the Senate, and the Executive if he’s from a different party.

    In 1988 two those two U.S. Senators from Michigan were both Democrats, Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Carl Levin. Sen. Levin is retiring after his term is up this year. I would argue they’re the ones who deserve our kudos far more than President Reagan.

Leave a Reply