Conversion Therapy Event at BYU-I Axed - The Daily Beast

Michael D. Williams, the Rexburg, Idaho-based counselor in question, told The Daily Beast “that I do not act on behalf of the [LDS Church], but as a member of the congregation who has taken a good look at much of the research regarding same-sex attraction [SSA], and who has assisted a number of young adults—male and female—to overcome unwanted SSA both here and in California.”

Williams did not immediately respond to further questions about the event, nor did he provide evidence of the supposed efficacy of his treatments. But a few hours later, he emailed to say, “Due to negative publicity the presentation has been called off.”

“I regret that the fears of some who’ve experienced repression and bigotry have resulted in others not being allowed to learn alternative viewpoints and options,” he said

No media outlets had reported on the event at the time of cancellation but The Daily Beast had made press inquiries to BYU-I and the Mormon Church. A BYU-I spokesperson later told The Daily Beast that the event was planned and subsequently cancelled by a local student congregation, not the university itself.


On his professional blog, Williams has authored several anti-gay and anti-transgender posts. In one, he refers to Leelah Alcorn—a transgender girl who committed suicide in December 2014, prompting the Obama administration to officially oppose conversion therapy—as a “troubled young man” and repeatedly uses male pronouns to refer to her. Williams predictably opposed President Obama’s new stance on conversion therapy.

In another post, in which Williams predicts that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell will have “dire consequences,” he claims that “[h]omes with same-sex ‘parents’ are remarkably unstable” and that the term “same-sex marriage” is “a misnomer and oxymoron.”

Conversion Therapy Event at BYU-I Axed - The Daily Beast

World Congress of Families to Feature Anti-LGBTQ Family Scholars | Political Research Associates

One of the leading exporters of U.S.-style culture wars—the World Congress of Families (WCF)—is hosting an international gathering of right-wing scholars and activists in Salt Lake City, Utah later this year. It will be WCF’s first major conference on U.S. soil, and the event’s agenda includes a who’s who list of U.S. conservatives. Among them are two individuals who have made it their business to provide academic sanction to some of the Right’s destructively erroneous claims about LGBTQ people: Mark Regnerus and Brad Wilcox.

Since its publication in July 2012, the infamous “Regnerus Study” (officially titled the “New Family Structures Study”) has become a favorite weapon in the Religious Right’s campaign against LGBTQ people. The study, funded by the right-wing Witherspoon Institute and conducted by University of Texas associate sociology professor Mark Regnerus, portrays LGB parents in a negative light, suggesting that children raised by a mother and father in biologically intact families fare better than children raised by LGBTQ people.

Regnerus’ work has received immense criticism from a vast assortment of academics arguing that the research is not only methodologically flawed,¹ but also unethically motivated and formulated. After listening to testimony from Regnerus and examining the study, Judge Bernard Friedman included the following in his ruling striking down a same-sex marriage ban: “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” Of particular concern is the role of Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project (NMP) at the University of Virginia.

By the time Wilcox took over as NMP’s top dog in 2009, he had established himself as a prominent sociologist in conservative academic circles, building a résumé featuring connections to some of the Right’s leading institutions, including the World Congress of Families and Witherspoon Institute.


World Congress of Families to Feature Anti-LGBTQ Family Scholars | Political Research Associates

President Santorum Will Protect Children From Gay Marriage | Right Wing Watch

Santorum, who is not unfamiliar with having to field questions from unhinged audience members, responded to the question about child molestation by talking about same-sex marriage. "That's one of the reasons why I talk about the importance of focusing on the nuclear family," he said, adding that the next president must take a stand for the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father.

If the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on gay marriage, he continued, "that doesn't mean we won't fight and try to push back both as the Congress should and as the president should as a co-equal branch of the government."

"Depending on what they rule," Santorum said, "we would certainly make sure that we are protecting children and that we are creating an optimal atmosphere for every child, as I said, that have their birthright, which is to be raised by their mother and father."

Just as with the Pope, Santorum is uttering bullshit.

In response to a question concerning the prevalence of abuse - gay/lesbian couples or marriages versus straight - I stated the following:

Although I am not aware of any incidents of abuse, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  I believe the statistics are about equal in regards to prevalence. 

The Reich has a really bad habit of citing the 2012 Mark Regnearus study in which he claimed to “prove” same-sex parenting is inherently harmful to children.  This study has been seriously panned as flawed methodologically and ethically.  (For more critique of said study see here.)

As an example, a review carried out by the American Medical Association:

,,, The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple." (p 33)

This from a review of, or concerning, the audit that was done by the publishing journal Social Science Research:

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

In his audit, he writes that the peer-review system failed because of “both ideology and inattention” on the part of the reviewers (three of the six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage). What’s more, he writes that the reviewers were “not without some connection to Regnerus,” and suggests that those ties influenced their reviews.

The Regnerus study was funded in part ($695,000) by the conservative think tank Witherspoon Institute, who actively oppose LGBT issues among many other social issues of import.  As numerous writers critiquing said study have pointed out, Burroway highlights very well, "All sorts of studies are funded by all sorts of institutions which support a variety of causes. Those sources can come from conservative, anti-gay organizations, or (as is the case with many studies which are favorable to LGBT issues) they can come from pro-gay sources such as the Williams Institute or other organizations. The source of funding can indicate a potential conflict of interest, but the true value of a study rests on the methodology of the study itself."

This point is also echoed by Bartlett in his review:

“There should be reflection about a conservative scholar garnering a very large grant from exceptionally conservative foundations,” he writes in the audit, “to make incendiary arguments about the worthiness of LGBT parents—and putting this out in time to politicize it before the 2012 United States presidential election.”

Sherkat considers Regnerus to be “a bright young scholar,” and, years ago, he wrote a letter of recommendation for him. Sherkat believes that Regnerus, whom he has known for two decades, made a decision to push a conservative political agenda in his academic work a number of years ago, and that this paper is evidence of it.

I find it a bit ironic, that Burroway in his analysis of the Regnerus study concludes with mention of the Witherspoon Institute and one Robert P. George.  An individual that I have written about in regards to a Frank Schaeffer's article that features numerous power brokers behind the Reich and its creation.  (I have since highlighted the section where I speak of George.)

Members of the Institute include Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and whose recent paper in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on same-sex marriage was critiqued at length by BTB’s Rob Tisinai. The Withersoon Institute reportedly has close associations with such organizations as the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei. George also sits on the board of directors for the Bradley Foundation, which also provided funds for this study.

I have said on numerous occasions, nothing the Reich does is without an end game in site.  And as I noted yesterday in regards to Frederick Clarkson's piece about the "legal manuals" coming from the Reich, ",,,Christian Right leaders of the culture war intend to fight LGBTQ Rights and marriage equality in the states, in the towns and cities, and in many kinds of institutions, no matter what the federal government and the courts may say."

Just how dishonest is the Reich in obtaining their end game:

The strategy is for sociological experts to sow just enough doubt about the wisdom of change such that preserving the status quo seems the only reasonable path. As the New York Times recently reported, in 2010 the conservative Heritage Foundation gathered social conservatives consisting of Catholic intellectuals, researchers, activists and funders at a Washington meeting to plot their approach. The idea was for conservative scholars to generate research claiming that gay marriage harms children by placing them in unstable gay homes and by upending marital norms for straights. A solid consensus of actual scholarship—not the fixed kind being ginned up at Heritage—has consistently found that gay parenting does not disadvantage kids, and no research has shown gay marriage having any impact on straight marriage rates. But trafficking in truth was not the plan. The plan was to tap into a sordid history of linking gay people with threatening kids, and to produce skewed research that could be used as talking points to demagogue the public.

But the Heritage plan was not to get invited to the cocktail parties of tenured radicals. It was to get Regnerus and other conservative thinkers on the witness stand to combat the airing of real research with enough fake research to create the illusion of a genuine debate. They hoped to avoid an embarrassing repeat of the 2010 Prop 8 trial in defense of California’s gay marriage ban, wherein the state’s witnesses withered under cross-examination. At one point, an expert witness was nearly disqualified after acknowledging he had never done any research on same-sex marriage and had only published two scholarly articles ever, one on Victorian cabinetmakers.
,,,
Judge Friedman didn’t fall for any of it. “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “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.”

But it is not just Regnerus spouting bad information in support of the Reich, another study oft cited  (especially in regards to the recent SCOTUS hearing concerning Marriage equality), was done by Donald Paul Sullins (2015).  His study is just as bad as the Regnarus study as one of the first major flaws is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married.  A point noted by Zack Ford over at Think Progress:

Sullins conducted an analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) that had been collected from 1997-2013. He concluded that information about the 512 same-sex parents identified in the study demonstrates that their children have more emotional problems compared to couples raised by their biological different-sex couples. That these children fare worse, he concludes, “justifies social and policy concerns about differences between family structures, including between opposite-sex and same-sex families.” In other words, same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they make inferior parents.

One of the first major flaws, however, is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married. As he notes, “Almost all opposite-sex parents who are raising joint biological offspring are in intact marriages, but very few, if any, same-sex parents were married during the period under observation.” The same-sex couples were instead defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” No conclusions can actually be drawn about the impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage because the study, by its own admission, collected no data about same-sex marriage or its effect on children.

Both Sullins and Regnarus have provided reviews and defended each others work:

Regnerus himself provides an overview of the research. In his attempt to defend it, however, he in turn reveals that it also has the very same flaws as his own study. In particular, the NHIS similarly contains no information about family formation. Sullins notes that many of the children had a biological connection to one of the same-sex parents, but it’s unknown if these are from prior relationships, which would suggest their negative outcomes are related to a broken home instead of having two parents of the same sex. Regnerus used the same conflation; only two of the children in his study were actually raised from birth by same-sex couples and they did not exhibit the same negative outcomes as those children who had parents that separated before one entered a same-sex relationship. Incidentally, Sullins has likewise defended Regenerus’ conclusions about the supposed inferiority “gay and lesbian families,” ignoring the significance of this flawed conflation.

Finally, just as damning as Regnerus' association with the Witherspoon Institute, so to is Sullins' alliance with the anti-gay Family Research Council‘s Marriage and Religion Research Institute

Just as the Pope should have known better about making his claim "[c]hildren mature seeing their father and mother like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father and mother have, confronted with this difference, he does is just asinine and diminishes any good he may be doing."  So too with Rick Santorum,"the next president must take a stand for the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father."

President Santorum Will Protect Children From Gay Marriage | Right Wing Watch

New Research Further Debunks Regnerus Study On Gay Parenting | Right Wing Watch

In an upcoming article, a pair of sociologists are putting what they call the “final nail in the coffin” of the much-criticized study by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus that purported to show that being raised by gay and lesbian parents harms children. The Regnerus study has become a favorite tool of Religious Right activists seeking to show that households led by same-sex couples are bad for children. At the same time, the study has come under scrutiny for the funding it received from anti-gay groups and for its lack of respondents who were actually raised in same-sex parent households.

Indiana University's Brian Powell and the University of Connecticut’s Simon Cheng didn’t just find methodological flaws in Regnerus’ research — they took the data he collected, cleaned it up, and redid the study, coming to a very different conclusion about families led by same-sex couples. Their article will be published in “Social Science Research,” the same journal that published the Regnerus study.

By eliminating suspect data — for example, a 25-year-old respondent who claimed to be 7’8” tall, 88 pounds, married 8 times and with 8 children, and another who reported having been arrested at age 1 — and correcting what they view as Regnerus’ methodological errors, Cheng and Powell found that Regnerus’ conclusions were so “fragile” that his data could just as easily show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents don’t face negative adult outcomes.

“[W]hen equally plausible and, in our view, preferred methodological decisions are used,” they wrote, “a different conclusion emerges: adult children who lived with same-sex parents show comparable outcome profiles to those from other family types, including intact biological families.”

In other words, as University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen put it, “when you clean the data and fix the things that are fixable, the results just don’t hold up.”

[,,,]

But in scrutinizing Regnerus’ data, Cheng and Powell determined that of the 236 respondents whom Regnerus had identified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father, one-tenth had never even lived with the parent in question and an additional one-sixth hadn’t lived with that parent for more than one year. Still more had provided inconsistent or unreliable responses to survey questions, throwing their reliability into doubt. That means, Powell says, that over one-third of the 236 people whom Regnerus classified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father “should absolutely not have ever been considered by Regnerus in this study.”

New Research Further Debunks Regnerus Study On Gay Parenting | Right Wing Watch

Disputed Study's Author Testifies In Michigan Gay Marriage Trial

The Mark Regnerus study (How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study) is once again in the news. What I do not understand, if this study and the methods used by Regnerus are controversial (for whatever reason), why is he being allowed to testify? Why is his "study" being allowed into evidence?

My biggest caveat concerning this study, based solely on criticisms I have read [sorry not paying $36 to download the PDF], The majority of the respondents to his survey/study were the result of a failed heterosexual relationship. He compared adults that while growing up, their parents had divorced, against adults whose biological parents are still married today. Pomegranates and avocados.

Regnerus was the leader of a study that screened thousands of people, ages 18 to 39, and found roughly 250 who said they grew up in a house where a mom or dad eventually had a same-sex relationship.

"He found they were more likely to have problems — welfare dependence, less education, marijuana use — than young adults from stable families led by heterosexuals. But he later acknowledged that his study didn't include children raised by same-sex couples in a stable relationship.

I haven't read the actual study, but a point not talked about as far as I can tell (within the confines of courts). These 250 so-called screwed-up young adults, no mention is made of the effects of the parents divorcing. Wouldn't it be more likely the difficulties, "the problems," were do to a lowered economic status. Blaming it on gay parenting seems a bit obtuse.

[Just discovered the "why" of my concern. With this trial still ongoing, the plaintiff's had not had their chance at cross at the time this article was published. Now I am wondering how they will handle Regnerus' testimony. I will be looking to update this as media criticism of Regnerus' testimony has been brutal.]

"Until we get more evidence, we should be skeptical. ... It's prudent for the state to retain its definition ofmarriage to one man, one woman," said Regnerus, who believes that's the best scenario for kids.

Uhm,,,in other words, we need to evaluate something that doesn't exist in order to determine if it should exist. Exactly how does one do that?

Disputed Study's Author Testifies In Michigan Gay Marriage Trial

Discredited Regnerus Study Continues Its Reign of Error | Hatewatch

For the anti-gay movement, call it the gift that keeps on giving. The thoroughly discredited study by University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus that was released July 2012 has turned up yet again, this time in the initial brief filed on behalf of the state of Utah in its fight against marriage equality. A federal judge ruled in December that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted a stay in January, and the lawsuit is currently wending its way through the appeals process.

The brief, filed by the state’s legal team late last night (beating the deadline by 30 minutes), suggests that children will somehow be endangered by marriage equality, and the Regnerus study is supposed to lend credence to the false claim that children raised in same-sex households fare worse in many ways than in households with opposite-sex couples.

However, Regnerus’ data does not support that conclusion, as he himself has admitted. Hundreds of sociologists have noted the study’s flawed methodology while the American Sociological Association slammed the study in a March 2013 amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, documents obtained by the American Independent suggest that Regnerus was recruited to conduct the study in order to use its findings to influence possible Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage equality and in fact may also have been coached about how to discuss the study publicly.

In spite of all that, since its publication, the study has been used in several amicus briefs that oppose marriage equality and it has been cited as justification for anti-gay policy at home and abroad. Last September, a Russian lawmaker cited the study in conjunction with his proposed bill to deny gay and lesbian parents custody of their children. The study may also have played a role in the passage of laws against “gay propaganda” in Russia that have encouraged open homophobia and, in some cases, violent attacks.

Discredited Regnerus Study Continues Its Reign of Error | Hatewatch