Gay actor Rupert Everett says kids shouldn't be brought up by gay dads

Idiot much?

“I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.”

“Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That’s just my opinion,” he said, adding that he doesn’t consider himself part of the “gay community.”

This again falls in the category of stars who need to learn to STFU.  It's not just "your opinion" when you have a very large megaphone and say something publicly that is: A) incredibly stupid, B) incredibly bigoted, C) incredibly damaging to our community, and D) false.

You're free in America, England and Australia to publicly act like an idiot. But if you do something idiotic that hurts millions of people and their children, then we're free to call you on it.

I know gay men who are great dads.  Who would make great dads.  Sure some wouldn't.  And guess what, I know lots of straight men who would make terrible dads, and who are terrible dads.

But to extrapolate from your lousy friends to the notion that there's nothing "worse than being brought up by two gay dads," is an incredibly stupid, and harmful, thing to say.

You might disagree with that, Rupert, but that's just my opinion. Read the rest of this post...

NOM admits Regnerus study was bogus

A gay blogger attended NOM's anti-gay student conference and got an earful about that Regnerus study that supposedly, but didn't, show that gay parents are bad for kids. It seems NOM is admitting that we were all correct, the study doesn't really look at that many real gay families.

Economist Douglas Allen, a speaker at NOM's conference: "[Regnerus] came up with some shocking results. What’s good about his study: so he wanted to use a large sample, and he tried but he still ended up with fairly small numbers given his definition. He wanted to use a wide range of hard measures, that’s very commendable. He has about forty different measures. And, I think what’s most commendable, he posted or has agreed to post, all of his data, all of his procedures, all of his work. That’s a huge leap forward in this literature. What’s not so good about it, well this is what he’s gotten beat up for. So he has a very wide definition of what it means to grow up in a same-sex household. 'I grew up in an opposite-sex household, but my dad had an affair with another man when I was twelve,' that counts as growing up in a same-sex household. A lot of people have said 'no, that counts as him growing up in a dysfunctional household.' And, you know, they’re probably right about that. So that’s the Achilles heel of this study, but he has been literally vilified in the blogosphere and all over the place. And of course, he admits this, he’s also unable to disentangle all of his effects. But he admits that. He says “look, I’m finding all these really seriously bad correlations.” You know, if you grew up in a same-sex household, by his definition, you are multiple times more likely to face sexual abuse, for example." [emphasis added]

Read the rest of this post...

Internal audit finds anti-gay marriage study to be "bullsh-t"

You might recall last month we reported on a new study that claimed that kids were worse off with gay parents.

At the time, a number of us noted that the study didn't appear to have anything to do with gay parenting at all - in fact, it's not entirely clear if the study looked at more than two gay parents in toto.

Well, the scientifically journal that published the study launched an internal audit to review whether the study was approved in the appropriate manner.  They found, in their own words, that the study itself is "bullsh-t."

Chronicle of Higher Education:

The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.

The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”

Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board—Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.

Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise: “It’s bullshit,” he said.

Sherkat goes on to explain that the peer reviewers had conflicts of interest and that he believes the study's author, Mark Regnerus, is pushing a political agenda:

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.

Read the rest of this post...

Mitt "More gay than Ted Kennedy" Romney says straight parents are better than gay ones

Whatever.  When Mitt Romney decides who he wants to be when he grows up, get back to us.

Via NewsOne

Read the rest of this post...

Most kids in new anti-gay "parenting" study didn't even live with gay parents long-term

As you may know, there's a new "study" claiming to show that gays make bad parents.

It's interesting therefore that most of the kids in the study who lived with gay parents didn't spend any significant period of time actually living with those parents. Jim Burroway makes a huge find:

But in this study, only 57% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least four months before the age of 18, and only 23% reported living with their father and his partner for the same length of time. Only 23% of LM [lesbian mom] children and 2% of GF  [gay father] children reported living with their parents and their parents’ same-sex partners for three years or more. And when looking at the outcomes of those children, we are being led to believe that those outcomes are in some way related to the short amounts of time that those children spent with their gay or lesbian parents while in a same-sex relationship, and not the fifteen-plus years the vast majority of them spent outside of that dynamic. The illogic behind this comparison is mind-boggling.

So to recap. The study purports to show how bad it is for kids to live with gay parents. But only 23% of the gay-parented kids in the study lived with a gay mom for three or more of their 18 years. And only 2% of the gay-parented kids lived with a gay dad for the same period of time.

So most of the kids in the study didn't really "live" with gay parents at all.  How is it then that the researcher found the same "damage" among kids who spent years with gay parents and those who spent only a few months or less - unless of course the damage was caused by something else all together (oh, I don't know, how about divorce itself?)

Jim notes a second, and important, point.  If the kids lived most of the time with heterosexual parents, and only a small fraction of the time with gay parents, then isn't it more likely that whatever "damage" they suffered happened from 17 years of living with a straight parent than 3 months of living with a gay one?

Jim does a deep, stellar analysis of the entire survey.  Do check it out. Read the rest of this post...

ABC's Carrie Gann sugarcoats anti-gay study paid for by anti-gay activists

UPDATE: ABC has changed the title of the piece to "Study of Gay Parenting Draws Criticism." The only problem is - as noted below - the study is about gay parenting. Even the author of the study admits it's not a study about parenting. I realize that it's hard to get this title right, but that's why ABC is paid the big bucks, to get it right. Find a good editor, and do it.
_______________

ABC News' Carrie Gann didn't think it important until the fifth paragraph of her story to mention that a new "study" "showing" that gay parents are bad for kids was paid for by a conservative, anti-gay think tank.

Time for a blogger ethics panel.

Oh but, as the saying goes, it gets better.

Not only does ABC bury the fact that the "study" was funded by anti-gay conservatives, but ABC's reporter Carrie Gann goes on to exonerate the conservatives and their study from any perception of bias (because, somehow, she knows it's really a good study).

The study was published Sunday in the journal Social Science Research. It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes," though the organizations played no role in the design and analysis of the report, the study said. [emphasis added]

Oh, well, the study claimed it wasn't biased. Silly me.

I'm sure the conservative anti-gay group didn't do anything to try to influence the outcome of the study - they would never think, for example, of maybe trying to pick someone to do the study who might lean their way.  Because that would be dishonest, and conservative anti-gay activists are never dishonest when attacking gay and lesbian Americans.  And what do you know, the author is in fact someone with a history of taking a pretty conservative tact on sexual issues - it wasn't just random chance that the anti-gay activists came to him.  (ABC also doesn't bother mentioning the author being someone who has consistently reached sexually conservative conclusions in his research.)

(A Mormon paper with ties to NOM was the first to report on the "study."  Now there's a coincidence.)

Oh, but it gets even better.

ABC also didn't bother mentioning that the study isn't a study of same-sex parenting.  It's a study of kids in broken homes.  More from Slate:

What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn’t meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus’ sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago. No more sham heterosexual marriages. No more post-parenthood self-discoveries. No more deceptions. No more affairs. And no more polarization between homosexuality and marriage. Gay parents owe their kids the same stability as straight parents. That means less talk about marriage as a right, and more about marriage as an expectation.

The author of the study seems to confirm that the study isn't really about gay parenting:

Q: So are gay parents worse than traditional parents?

A: The study is not about parenting per se. There are no doubt excellent gay parents and terrible straight parents. The study is, among other things, about outcome differences between young adults raised in households in which a parent had a same-sex relationship and those raised by their own parents in intact families. It’s not about sexual orientation, at least not overtly. There are many significant differences, but the study does not ascribe any causes for the differences. This can only be assessed with additional research. What is evident in the data, however, is above-average instability among households in which mom or dad had a same-sex relationship. For example, among the former only two respondents total said they lived with their mother and her partner nonstop from birth to age 18. [emphasis added]

"The study is not about parenting per se."  That's from the author of the study.  But that didn't stop ABC from making this the headline of their story:

Study: Kids of Parents in Same-sex Relationships Fare Worse as Adults

It's not about parenting, but the headline sure is.

And here's the first paragraph of ABC's story about a study that isn't about parenting:

A new study finds that adult children of parents in same-sex relationships fare worse socially, psychologically and physically than people raised in other family arrangements.

Well ABC sure seems to think the study is about parenting, and they'll be damned if they don't force you to agree with their bias.

This study isn't about kids raised by gay parents. It simply compares kids raised in a home unencumbered by divorce or adultery to kids raised in a home where mom or dad either had an affair, and/or divorced.  (Gee, you think the kids in the latter category (where a parent had an affair or divorced) might end up more troubled than the kids in the former (where the parents stayed together with no adultery?)  For all we know, kids raised in a family in which a parent had an opposite-sex relationship outside of the marriage might also show the same results.  But God forbid we look at that too - that might just ruin the anti-gay results, and ABC wouldn't have nearly as sensational a story.

This is a classic religious right tactic.  Take research that really has nothing to do with gay people and reach anti-gay conclusions, and with the help of the media make the lie true.

Seriously, ABC?  You bury the lede, and then you exonerate the bigotry, and then you fail to even mention what I pointed to above.  Heckuva day's work.

It is irresponsible and unprofessional - and I'd even say unethical - for ABC to write a he-said-she-said article claiming that "gay parents hurt kids" without doing a much more in-depth, and careful, story on this. It's like writing a he-said-she-said on whether someone's a pedophile - or worse, and more to the point - on whether African-Americans are genetically inferior (because, after all, that's what this is - a study on whether a minority class is inherently inferior).

The very act of writing the story is damaging to one's reputation, even if they're exonerated.  Thus you can't simply write the story and quote a few critics.  You have to seriously example whether you even write the story at all, and then, perhaps, if you feel you must write the story, you base the story on how the study failed UNLESS the study is so rock solid it's unimpeachable.  And that is not the case here.

What you don't do is bury the critics in the second half of the story after parroting the right-wing authors' claims that the study wasn't influenced by its right-wing funders.

Shame. Read the rest of this post...

Houston judge limits rights of gay father

From the Houston Chronicle:

Following the trial, Harris County Associate Judge Charley E. Prine, Jr. issued a ruling which included an injunction applicable only to William. It prohibits him from leaving his children alone with any male to whom the kids are not related by “blood or adoption.” So if, for example, William wants to visit his mother in the hospital (where she’s been for several weeks), he can’t leave his kids at home with his husband. As written, the injunction also prohibits male doctors, teachers and pastors from being alone with the children.

What do conservatives say about progressives and judicial activism? I seem to have forgotten. Read the rest of this post...

Texas diners defend gay parents

Fascinating story. From ABC News:

The Gay Parents Scenario: An actress hired by "What Would You Do?" is waiting tables at a local family style diner, Norma's Café in Farmers Branch, Texas. It's a typical busy morning for her until our actors portraying the role of a gay couple -- first females, then males -- dining with their children are seated in her section. As she begins to express her discomfort and probe their parenting skills, other diners begin to take notice. Will these patrons take the side of our waitress or will they defend the unconventional family?

Read the rest of the article to see what happened. I'm really surprised, and impressed. Read the rest of this post...

Belgian govt kept gay couple away from their child for two years

Belgium.

Gay men can get married in Belgium. Yet the government's homophobia still kept two parents away from their child for two years. It's over now, but Jesus, someone in that government should fry for this. (H/t Towle Road) Read the rest of this post...

Child-rearing among gay couples is more common in the South

Now that's a surprise. NYT:

[T]he data show, child rearing among same-sex couples is more common in the South than in any other region of the country, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the University of California, Los Angeles. Gay couples in Southern states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas are more likely to be raising children than their counterparts on the West Coast, in New York and in New England.

Read the rest of this post...

Florida gubernatorial candidate McCollum opposes gay foster parents

Because kids these days have it too easy. Especially kids in foster care in Florida.

George Rekers supporter, Florida Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum think so. Rather than provide these kids with stable homes with couples that just want to help kids, McCollum has used his platform and candidacy to come out against gay couples serving as foster parents. This is in addition to opposing gay couples being able to adopt children.

When asked by the Florida Baptist Witness about gay couples serving as foster parents, McCollum said (emphasis added),

Q: Should the law [allowing gay couples to serve as foster parents] be changed?

McCollum: I think that it would be advisable. I really do not think that we should have homosexuals guiding our children. I think that it’s a lifestyle that I don’t agree with. I realize a lot of people do. It’s my personal faith, religious faith, that I don’t believe that the people who do this should be raising our children. It’s not a natural thing. You need a mother and a father. You need a man and a woman. That’s what God intended.

Once again, not just an attack on gay families and parents, but an insult to single parents. Read the rest of this post...

Mary Cheney delivered another grandchild for Dick and Lynne

Dick and Lynne Cheney are grandparents again:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary Cheney has delivered a baby girl.

It's the second child for Cheney and her partner of more than 17 years, Heather Poe.

Sarah Lynne Cheney was born Wednesday morning at Sibley Hospital in Washington, weighing 6 pounds and 14 ounces. She is the seventh grandchild of the former vice president and his wife, Lynne.

I'm sure she'll be getting all kinds of nice wishes from all her old homophobic pals from the Bush campaign like Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, James Dobson and Bishop Harry Jackson. Read the rest of this post...

Obama mentions same-sex parents in Family Day Proclamation

And that's very good. And words are important, as they help change the culture. I'd still like to see DADT and DOMA repealed, and ENDA passed, among other priorities.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 28, 2009

FAMILY DAY, 2009
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Our family provides one of the strongest influences on our lives. American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things. Today, our children are confronting issues of drug and alcohol use with astonishing regularity. On Family Day, we honor the dedication of parents, commend the achievements of their children, and celebrate the contributions our Nation's families have made to combat substance abuse among young people.

The 21st century presents families with unprecedented challenges. Millions of women and men are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs with the needs of their families. At the same time, our youngest generation faces countless distractions in their social environment. They are coming of age in a world where electronic devices have replaced the playground, televisions have preempted conversation, and pressure to use drug and alcohol is far too prevalent. Parents bear significant stress and burdens to protect their children from harmful influences.

It is our responsibility to talk with adolescents about the risks of abusing alcohol, tobacco, or prescription and illicit drugs, and other harmful behaviors. These substances can destroy the mind, body, and spirit of a child, jeopardizing their health and limiting their potential. Active parents, voicing their disapproval of drug use, have proven themselves to be the most effective preventative method for keeping our children drug-free. A strong and engaged family can make all the difference in helping young people make healthy decisions.

By coming together as a family and discussing the events of the day, parents can foster open communication, share joy sand concerns, and help guide their children toward healthy decisionmaking. A strong nation is made up of strong families, and on this Family Day, we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every American family has the chance to build a better, healthier future for themselves and their children.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 28, 2009, as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to join together in observing this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor and strengthen our Nation's families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

Read the rest of this post...