Michael Petrelis accuses Freedom to Marry of engaging in a double-standard when it comes to transparency:
Put aside the respective agendas of Evan Wolfson and his gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, and Brian Brown of the oppositional National Organization for Marriage, because I want to focus on the matter of transparency at both groups.
Almost two-years back, I blogged about FTM not having any 990s posted on their site and it was due to the fact that it lacked its own tax exempt status from the IRS, and that the Astrea Foundation was FTM's fiscal sponsor.
... TM now has 501c3 and 501c4 tax statuses, and each arm of the group now has filed their first and only IRS 990s, however, in a surprising act of opaqueness FTM doesn't post them on-site. At their annual reports page, pictured, FTM states one has to file a written request in order to inspect the 990s. Any suggestion that Wolfson can keep his 990s off-site and still claim transparency is laughable.
Essence News Editor Wendy Wilson was in Tampa last week to "find out exactly why [African Americans in attendance] aren't backing President Obama in 2012. Here is part of her interview with Rev. William Owens:
ESSENCE: Why are you attending the RNC, and what’s the message you want to send here?
REV. WILLIAM OWENS: We are here but we will also be at the Democratic National Convention next week. We want it to be known that the African American community is for marriage between a man and a woman. I’m not dealing with any other issue here because as the Black family deteriorates, none of the other issues will matter. The President has gone down the wrong road. He’s in the White House because of the Blacks who gave their lives during the civil rights movement. If it wasn’t for them he wouldn’t be there, and yet he caters to less than three percent of the population only because they can give him that Hollywood money. He is taking the Black vote for granted.
Reuters as a company is pro-gay marriage. Has AP now joined the club? How could a reporter get the basic facts so wrong -- and yet so exactly what Dan Savage wanted published?
A Washington state official has called an Associated Press report misleading for suggesting that the government was banning the Catholic Church from taking collections to support a traditional marriage initiative.
The report was followed by a Thursday report spotlighting Protect Marriage Washington for supporting the allegedly illegal gift method, with the headline: “Washington anti-gay marriage law group encourages ‘bundling’ donations.” The second article noted that state officials planned to send a letter to church officials and Protect Marriage on the issue.
But when Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, was asked whether the agency had ruled against the Catholic Church’s planned collection, she responded, “Oh gosh, no.”
...“The strange part was, we only read this in the press. The press contacted us and we said, ‘What?’” she said.
One source pointed to a blog article in Seattle’s prominent alternative newspaper The Stranger, where LGBT activist Dan Savage is editorial director, that had questioned the legality of the campaign one day before the first AP story was published. -- LifeSiteNews
Here are highlights from the new paper [by Mark Regnerus] (which is unfortunately not available free online, though you can find the abstract and some tables here):
Regnerus calls the audit of his study—by Darren E. Sherkat of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—a “rather uncommon and disturbing experience in social-science research.” He writes that Sherkat “has long harbored negative sentiment about me.”
Regnerus writes that the criticism of his decision to label parents “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” regardless of whether or for how long their children lived with them, is “the most reasonable criticism” made of the paper. He says that, “[i]n hindsight,” he wishes he had given them different labels. “I recognize that the acronyms LM and GF are prone to conflate sexual orientation … with same-sex relationship behavior.”
Regnerus cites a study of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden that found that “the divorce risk is higher in same-sex marriages” to bolster his case that same-sex relationships are less stable.
He writes that the “science here remains young” and contends that previous studies that have shown “no difference” between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples ought to have a “stronger burden of proof.”
Regnerus concludes the paper with the following sentence:
"Until much larger random samples can be drawn and evaluated, the probability-based evidence that exists—including additional NFSS [theNew Family Structures Study, Regnerus's project to study same-sex families] analyses herein—suggests that the biologically intact two-parent household remains an optimal setting for the long-term flourishing of children."
A coalition of the nation's most prominent conservative social issue groups (www.lifeandmarriagecoalition.com) today announced that they are coordinating efforts in Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina to talk about the importance of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and supporting the sanctity of human life. The groups hope to influence voters in key swing states that Barack Obama carried in 2008.
"This is a historic coming together of premiere social conservative groups to coordinate efforts in three swing states most likely to determine the outcome of this fall's presidential election," saidTony Perkins, president of FRC Action, the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council."Many supporters of life and marriage do not realize that their votes could determine the outcome of the election, which in turn could determine the future of marriage and life in this country. We're working together to ensure they understand that President Obama is anti-marriage and anti-life."
The Life and Marriage Coalition includes FRC Action, Susan B. Anthony List, National Organization for Marriage, American Principles in Action, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee and Common Sense Issues. Combined efforts will include independent expenditures for radio advertisements, billboards, phone and bus tour events designed to educate and mobilize socially conservative voters in the three targeted states.
Carl L. Bankston III, professor of sociology at Tulane Universty in New Orleans and prolific author writes at the Moral Liberal blog:
Two of the greatest problems in social research are confirmation bias and the attribution of causal relations among concepts. The first refers to the tendency to find results that confirm our preconceived ideas. This may be more or less conscious: since researchers “know” that diversity contributes to educational achievement, they will look for evidence that demonstrates a relationship that is, to their minds, self-evident. It may be unconscious: our values and perspectives may shape how we decide to define issues. I see examples of confirmation bias every day in published and unpublished research, and in the casual statements of researchers.
... A look at the internet discussions generated by the persecution of Regnerus will show hysterical denunciations of this researcher and everyone associated with him as “homophobic bigots” who seek to “demonize” gays. I was heartened to see a defense of Regnerus signed by a number of prominent social scientists and an excellent analysis of the affair by Notre Dame Sociologist Christian Smith. But the attacks on Regnerus don’t just threaten to damage the career of a single researcher. They send a message to all researchers: if you don’t follow the prescribed line on every controversial issue, the activists will get out the tar and feathers.
The University of Texas at Austin announced Wednesday that a sociologist who has been excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents’ homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children is innocent of academic misconduct
Dr. Mark Regnerus made headlines in June, when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.
As a result, a gay-activist blogger accused Regnerus of academic fraud, demanding in July that the university release all his research material and emails with fellow sociologists.
Administrators conducted an exhaustive pre-investigation to determine whether a more comprehensive one would be necessary — including hiring a consultant who formerly ran the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the process.
After sequestering all of Regnerus’s correspondence and conducting both written and oral interviews with him and his accuser, Scott Rosensweig, Research Integrity Officer Robert Peterson wrote in an Aug. 24 memorandum to administrators, “None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth … were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.
“Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted.”
A University of Texas faculty member did not commit scientific misconduct in connection with his study that raised doubts about gay parenting, the university has concluded.
As a result, no formal investigation of allegations against Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology, is warranted, UT announced Wednesday.
"I think it's a just and wise decision, and I'm certainly pleased with it," Regnerus told the American-Statesman in an email. "It was a thorough and fair process, and conducted professionally."
Regnerus found that the adult children of gay parents reported significantly different, and often worse, life experiences than the children of married, heterosexual biological parents.
... After consulting with a four-member advisory panel of senior UT faculty members, Peterson found no falsification of data, plagiarism or other serious ethical breaches constituting scientific misconduct.
An official University of Texas at Austin inquiry has found that Professor Mark Regnerus, the author of a research study on the effects of same-sex relationships upon children, “did not commit scientific misconduct” as alleged by a homosexual activist who disagreed with the study’s findings.
“America’s universities should always serve as truth-seeking, free marketplaces of ideas,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “Disagreeing with a study’s conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct; therefore, we are not surprised that those accusations were found to be baseless. This comprehensive, peer-reviewed research study consisted of leading scholars and researchers across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. We agree with the UT-Austin inquiry’s conclusion that the academy is the appropriate place for debate about this study.”
The New Family Structures Study suggests that differences exist in outcomes for young adults raised in various environments with different family experiences. UT-Austin conducted an official inquiry after activist blogger Scott Rosensweig (who goes by “Scott Rose”) accused Regnerus of scientific misconduct in the study and in how the results were reported in a scientific article about the study’s findings. Because the inquiry found the allegations to be unsubstantiated, UT-Austin says it will not conduct a formal investigation.
Opponents of gay marriage have staged a demonstration outside a meeting of the Scottish cabinet.
The group Scotland For Marriage staged the protest before the meeting at Renfrew Town Hall.
...Scotland For Marriage, which is backed by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland and the non-denominational Christian Institute charity among others, has described the proposals as "ill-conceived and poorly thought-out".
The campaign group will use the protest to raise fears that changing the law could see teachers disciplined if they refuse to use books about same-sex relationships.
A Scotland For Marriage spokesman said: "Parents may also find it difficult to withdraw children from classes.
..."Our supporters are highly motivated and harbour deep fears for the future that if the marriage laws are redefined, gay marriage will be promoted to schoolchildren in Scotland."
Greetings from the great state of Florida, where marriage emerged from the platform fight with a great victory!
In the buildup to the RNC Convention in Tampa, the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud promised that a new generation of Margaret Hoover Republicans would help weaken the GOP's commitment to marriage.
This is part of a larger narrative of supposed inevitability that we always hear: "Support for gay marriage is growing everywhere."
Except when it's not.
The effort to get the GOP to retreat from marriage in Tampa was an epic fail for the seditious pro-gay marriage elites within the GOP!
The director of the Log Cabin Republicans, R. Clarke Cooper, told the Boston Globe in July that his group's goal was to convince Republicans to strike any "anti-gay language" from the platform—including any mention that marriage is a union of male and female or any other definition of marriage as a heterosexual union.
Even two weeks ago, Cooper was still holding out hope to the gay press that "progress" in eviscerating the marriage language would be made.
But in the end he and other gay marriage advocates were reduced to boasting that they were permitted to distribute literature, and calling that a victory. Well, gee! As I asked HuffPo—is that really the best they could do? I'm one of the strongest opponents of gay marriage around, and I don't oppose letting people distribute literature at Republican conventions!
And then GOProud actually boasted victory for giving what they thought was the coolest party attended by conservative luminaries in a Tampa gay bar complete with male go-go dancers. [Pictures from the event, like the one here, are floating around the internet. You can take a look and see if you think they have cause for such celebration!]
Well gee, if that's your victory, then good on you, guys!
Maybe their failure has something to do with another truth the media doesn't report: even gay people don't think gay marriage is their most urgent problem.
That's right: a new Harris interactive poll touted by GOProud shows just 6 percent of gay voters named same-sex marriage as their top issue!
Meanwhile, supporters of marriage can boast a truly substantive victory, as the platform language endorsed by the GOP—far from retreating or equivocating on marriage—is the strongest ever:
Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary
A serious threat to our country's constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.
A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage
That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their institutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.
We owe special thanks to Phyllis Schlafly, and also to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, for all their hard work towards this great (and underreported) victory for marriage.
If you were here with me in Tampa, you wouldn't be surprised at marriage's triumph.
Walking the floor and speaking with delegates at the Convention, it's very apparent that (again counter to the media-narrative) marriage is an issue which totally unites the heart of the GOP—much to the frustration of my old buddy Fred Karger, who's been following me around with a camera hoping to catch me in something he considers a faux pas.
I don't think Fred's going to post the conversation I had with an Indian-American from Texas, one of many who came up to me to say he reads NOM's emails and blog, and that he's praying for me in particular and for all of us in this marriage fight.
The guy's Indian. He's Christian. He's also Texan. Which means he's speaking to me from under a gigantic cowboy hat. You gotta love America!
But if the media and Fred Karger did miss it, others have noticed this great victory for marriage.
Here's Rev. Owens, NOM's liason for outreach in the black community, on Christian Broadcasting News, speaking for a coalition of black pastors to thank the GOP for ensuring at least one party still stands strong for the "common sense and biblical understanding of marriage."
Several folks have given great speeches for marriage from the podium here this week, including Sen. Rick Santorum, whose theme was that we cannot shrink government unless we strengthen marriage and the family—and that support for each and every human life is not a "social issue," but a constitutional issue, part of America's founding creed.
"Marriage is disappearing in places where dependency is the highest," Senator Santorum said. "Most single mothers do heroic work and an amazing job raising their children. But if America is going to succeed we must stop the assault on marriage and the family in America today."
We also owe our thanks to Gov. Mike Huckabee for supporting marriage in his convention speech—but also for having me on his radio show this week! If you missed it, have a listen here:
Most impressive this week, perhaps, was Paul Ryan's touting of Mitt Romney's strong defense of marriage, in a speech that was supposed to be all about the economy. (In his own convention speech, Romney promised: "As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America's first liberty: the freedom of religion.") But Paul Ryan gave what was for many of us the clearest refutation of the idea the GOP is running from marriage or life because voters have changed their minds:
Mitt and I also go to different churches, but in any church the best kind of preaching is done by example, and I've been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable—not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman—he's a fine man, worthy of leading this good-hearted and optimistic country. Our faiths comes together in the same moral creed: we believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person there is hope; each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and the likeness of the Lord of life.
As Paul Ryan said, a time of choosing draws near. For marriage, as for life and religious liberty, the consequences of this election will be of unprecedented importance.
And the National Organization for Marriage will NOT be sitting on the sidelines!
This week, in a historic announcement, a group of social conservative organizations announced a new Life and Marriage Coalition, pledging to work together to make sure voters understand where the two candidates stand on the so-called "social issues" of life and marriage. In the joint press release on the Coalition's site, we explained:
[The coalition is] coordinating efforts in Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina to talk about the importance of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and supporting the sanctity of human life. Together, the groups hope to influence voters in key swing states that Barack Obama carried in 2008.
The Life and Marriage Coalition includes FRC Action, Susan B. Anthony List, the National Organization for Marriage, American Principles in Action, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, and Common Sense Issues. Combined efforts will include independent expenditures for radio advertisements, billboards, phone and bus tour events designed to educate and mobilize socially conservative voters in the three targeted states.
"For millions of Americans, this election is about more than the economy, it's about the direction our nation takes on foundational principles, like what constitutes marriage, and whether unborn children have a right to life," said Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage.
I'm also proud to announce this week NOM's first volley in this joint effort: a radio ad campaign in Raleigh, North Carolina, home to 40 percent of the black electorate. The ad urges black voters to tell President Obama "no more," and features the highly-respected black pastor Patrick Wooden. You can listen to it here:
It was the African American community that helped [President Obama] win here in North Carolina. But President Obama has turned his back on the values of our community with his strong endorsement of the homosexual movement. We worked hard to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment this past May. With the strong support of the African American community, the amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman passed overwhelmingly. The very next day, President Obama came out for homosexual marriage. Now his campaign leaders are working to deny North Carolina's ability to define marriage, and they want to overturn our state marriage amendment altogether. Join me in saying 'no more' to President Obama.
Our own internal polling shows that radio ads on marriage are extraordinarily effective, by the way. This is probably because your average voter, outside of church, hears so little in support of the common sense view that marriage means a husband and wife. So, they notice these ads and they respond!
North Carolina is a state that swung for Obama in 2008 by just 15,000 votes, out of 4 million total votes cast! Obama needed 95 percent of the black vote to eke out that victory! And in a state with 800,000 black voters, don't you think Rev. Wooden is probably going to change a few hearts and minds with this hard-hitting message? It's more than likely—it's certain!
And this is just the beginning of something big!
For the first time in American presidential politics, the American people are being offered a clear and unequivocal choice on the issue of marriage. And NOM intends to make sure voters understand that—and that politicians supporting gay marriage understand that it is a losing proposition!
One was of helping voters understand this is to keep reminding them of the consequences for us all that gay marriage entails. In Vermont these consequences were severe for the O'Reilly family, a Roman Catholic family who ran a small bed and breakfast, the Wildflower Inn. Facing backbreaking litigation threats from a gay couple (supported by the ACLU) who had wanted to get married at the bed and breakfast (which is, after all, the O'Reilly family's home as well as their business), Mr. and Mrs. O'Reilly agreed to pay $30,000 to the lesbian couple.
Vermont gay marriage law changed the O'Reilly family's lives. They must now host gay weddings, or pay a costly price. Remember the O'Reilly family when people tell you that gay marriage is not going to affect anyone at all except gay couples. Gay marriage has consequences for us all!
And while we are on the subject of intolerance, let me give a great shout out to my friend and colleague, Peter Wolfgang, who took over the Family Institute of Connecticut when I left to help found the National Organization for Marriage. Peter has been the subject of a horrific campaign of death threats since last Thanksgiving. If you want to see for yourself what I'm talking about, he's now posted some examples on his Facebook page.
Peter has been able to do this now because the gay activist who'd been threatening him has pled guilty in federal court to the harassment and the threats. LifeSiteNews reports:
One message read: "No mercy for homophobes. I suggest you make your funeral arrangements real soon, Mr. Wolfgang."
Another said, "I sure hope somebody blows you away. Yer dead."
Sarno once asked, "Are 'family values' worth dying for, Mr. Wolfgang?"
"Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident," Wolfgang said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. "In fact it is part of a growing and disturbing intimidation campaign among some proponents of same-sex 'marriage.' It is clear that their pretense of 'tolerance' is over."
When I ask you to pray for all the people on the front lines of the marriage fight, now you will know why.
But we do have good news to report, too: this on the New Family Structures Study published by Professor Mark Regnerus. The University of Texas found no evidence of "scientific misconduct" by Prof. Regnerus, despite the overwrought and hysterical allegation of a gay blogger named Scott Rose. (He's now moved on to trying to get the American Sociological Association to "discipline" Regnerus for doing a study with results of which he disapproves.) You can read more about it here. And another fierce critic of the study also found no violations of standard peer review process (although he remains, one might say hysterically critical, of the study).
If you're in the mood for a kinder, gentler gay marriage debate, without these hysterical and accusatory polemics, check out Maggie Gallagher debating co-author John Corvino on C-Span's Book TV (the new Oxford University Press book, Debating Same-sex Marriage, is available for purchase!):
Meanwhile, I have to thank Frank Schubert, NOM's National Political Director, for his account of my debate with Dan Savage, which Frank called "The Smackdown in Seattle!"
The debate lasted just over an hour. Some of you have already watched it in its entirety. But I realize that not everyone has the time in their busy schedule to watch the full debate, so I went through the video and picked out about ten minutes of highlights. Please take a few minutes to watch.
What you will see is a passionate, reasoned, articulate defense of marriage, and a presentation of the profound public good it serves. You will see Brian demolish Dan Savage's arguments that the bible cannot be believed when it comes to marriage. You will see Brian make a case about the inherent nature of marriage, and how that nature cannot be altered. It is what it is and it cannot be redefined. Gay "marriage" can never exist, Brian explains, because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman.
Defending marriage is in one sense easy. The truth doesn't change. All the media narratives cannot change the nature of marriage, nor the continuing evidence that the American people remain invested (with good sense) in the idea that marriage matters because children need a mom and a dad.
I promise you that we here at NOM will remain your voice for your values. Whether Democrat or Republican, whether black or white, whether evangelical Christian, or Mormon or Orthodox Jew, we will fight together for what's right—for God's truth about marriage—and we will, by His grace, WIN!
Brian Brown, with the National Organization for Marriage (LINK), told CBN News the Democrats have taken such extreme positions backing same sex marriage and abortion, they may lose groups they think are solid Democratic voters."And I don't think the Democratic Party can continue to just simply take advantage and be nonchalant about the votes of African-Americans, blue-collar Catholics, Hispanics," Brown said.
"And the Republican Party, because of its platform, I think we've made very clear where we stand," he continued. "We stand on the side of defense of marriage and life."
"...A poll taken last week by Harris Interactive of more than 1,000 voters who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender found that nearly one-third dubbed the economy the nation’s most pressing issues with only 6 percent calling same-sex marriage most important."
A constituent of marriage flip-flopper Roy McDonald shares why he intends to vote the way he will:
I keep getting glossy flyers from Roy McDonald ... at least three in the past two weeks. No doubt they are paid for, at least in part, by the contributions he got from New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg for his vote for gay marriage.
That being the case, I continue to wonder why Senator (hopefully soon to be former Senator) McDonald never mentions that vote when he lists his achievements. One must wonder why ... mustn’t one?
If it was “the right thing to do” as he said at the time, then one would think that he should be proud of that achievement. Evidently not. He now sees the handwriting on the wall and values his job more than the “right thing to do,” continuing to “forget” to mention this “right thing.”
... I have not forgotten your vote. And I will not forget when I proudly vote for Kathy Marchione on Sept. 13 in the Republican primary. -- The Record
Put aside the respective agendas of Evan Wolfson and his gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, and Brian Brown of the oppositional National Organization for Marriage, because I want to focus on the matter of transparency at both groups.
ESSENCE: Why are you attending the RNC, and what’s the message you want to send here?
As a result, no formal investigation of allegations against Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology, is warranted, UT announced Wednesday.
“America’s universities should always serve as truth-seeking, free marketplaces of ideas,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “Disagreeing with a study’s conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct; therefore, we are not surprised that those accusations were found to be baseless. This comprehensive, peer-reviewed research study consisted of leading scholars and researchers across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. We agree with the UT-Austin inquiry’s conclusion that the academy is the appropriate place for debate about this study.”
