10 years after Obergefell, a discredited study lingers on same-sex marriage
Today marks ten years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Although this landmark decision now feels like a natural step forward, it came after decades of legal battles and shifting public opinion about same-sex marriage.
As six federal cases were making their way through the courts, the momentum behind legalizing same-sex marriage was building. Thirty-six states already allowed same-sex marriage and gay rights were expanding globally. Shifting public opinion in the U.S. reflected this change, with a clear majority of Americans supporting same-sex marriage by 2016.
Opponents of same-sex marriage knew momentum was not on their side, so they mounted a defense based on the claim that same-sex marriage is bad for children. To defend this claim, they went in search of data.
Two conservative organizations and W. Bradford Wilcox — a sociology professor with ties to one of the organizations — designed and funded a study that was to be completed in time to present to U.S. courts. Wilcox and his team recruited a researcher named Mark Regnerus to conduct the study at the University of Texas at Austin, a program with a strong reputation. They also hired several respected academic consultants (named in the write-up) who strategized about how to publish their findings in Social Science Research, a widely respected sociology journal.
With data collection underway, a problem with the timeline emerged. As sociologist and demographer Phil Cohen has described, data collection ended on February 21, 2012, but Social Science Research had received the article 20 days earlier, on February 1, 2012. This means that the manuscript was written and submitted before data collection was complete.
To be clear: the use of an incomplete dataset without disclosure violates scientific reporting standards. Correspondence among Wilcox's team revealed the likely reason for submitting early: they wanted the article to be published in time to be used in upcoming legal battles over same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A closer look at the study's design reveals more problems. The central question was: 'Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?' To answer it, Regnerus compared survey responses of adult children from three types of families. The first group was raised by both biological parents with intact marriages. The second and third groups had either a father or a mother who, at some point, was involved in a same-sex relationship.
There is a glaring problem here: having a parent who once had a same-sex relationship or romantic encounter is very different from being raised by same-sex parents. In fact, most people from these groups said they only lived with their parent while they had a same-sex partner for a few years or less. Some even reported never living with their parent while they were in that relationship.
Furthermore, almost half of the study participants reported that their biological parents had been through a divorce.
It is already well-known that having parents with intact marriages confers benefits upon children. So Regnerus's finding of group differences could have been chalked up to his comparing of people raised by divorced parents versus those raised by two biological parents who remained together.
Despite all these problems, how did the study get published in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal? It turns out, two of the reviewers also happened to be two of the study's paid consultants, with one of them being Wilcox himself.
Despite Regnerus's failure to answer (or even ask) his research question, he still testified against overturning Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage in a 2014 court case, citing his study as evidence. After reviewing the research and hearing the testimony, the judge, a Reagan appointee, wrote of Regnerus: 'The court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.'
Social scientists agreed with the judge and decried the ethical and scientific lapses in this study.
Although Wilcox, Regnerus, and their allies lost the legal battle over same-sex marriage, they have not given up. Yet as of today, we know of no data showing differences between children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex couples in terms of social development, mental health, sexual behavior, substance abuse, or academic achievement.
Matthew D. Johnson is a professor of psychology and Alana L. Riso a graduate student, both at Binghamton University, State University of New York.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Republicans defend cuts to Medicaid and renewable energy in Big Beautiful Bill: ‘absolutely out of control'
Key Republican senators pushed back Sunday against criticism of cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill, including Medicaid work restrictions and the elimination of many green energy subsidies. The Senate version of President Trump's signature tax and spending legislation imposes 80 hours a month work requirements on able-bodied adults, including those with children ages 15 and up. It also reduces the health care provider tax, which helps fund state Medicaid plans. Critics argue that those changes could result in millions of people losing access to Medicaid, which provides health care to over 70 million low-income Americans. 'There's 35 million people under the poverty line inside the United States, and there's 70 million people that are signed up for Medicaid,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) told NBC's 'Meet the Press' Sunday. 'What we are focused on is making sure that Medicaid is there for people in the future that need it and get rid of the fraud, waste and abuse.' 5 Progressive activists have protested against the Medicaid reform provisions in the megabill. Getty Images 5 President Trump has lashed out at senators who have opposed advancing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Getty Images Medicaid reform is the largest source of savings in the megabill, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating the legislative bundle would reduce Medicaid costs by about $930 billion over the next decade. Several senators have been uneasy about the Medicaid reform in the Senate bill, which goes further than the House version of the megabill. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), for example, voted against proceeding with the bill Saturday, citing Medicaid as his top concern. 'I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' Tillis said in a statement Saturday. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population.' 5 Sen. Markwayne Mullin defended the Medicaid reforms as reasonable. REUTERS Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) had raged against the Medicaid provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but stopped short of opposing the measure. 'We can't be cutting health care for working people and for poor people in order to constantly give special tax treatment to corporations and other entities,' Hawley told NBC News last week. The Senate bill includes bigger cuts to business taxes, including a permanent deductions for R&D spending. Despite those concerns, key senators defended the Medicaid reforms on the Sunday shows as the Senate forges ahead with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'The entitlement spending in this nation is absolutely out of control. You can rewind back to the 1960s, when actual mandatory spending, which is what these entitlements are, only made up about a third of federal spending,' Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) told CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday. 'Now, if you take that, plus the interest on our debt, it's about 73 percent of what we spend.' 5 Sen. Katie Britt called the reforms reminiscent of Clinton-era policies. Bloomberg via Getty Images Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) also touted plans to consider an amendment that would ensure illegal immigrants don't get access to Medicaid. 'Remember, the Medicaid reforms in this bill are about work requirements and taking illegals off of Medicaid,' Banks told 'Fox News Sunday.' Another closely watched amendment from Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) would lower the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which determines the percentage of Medicaid costs covered by Uncle Sam. Scott's amendment would lower FMAP for able-bodied, childless adults. The amendment has been used to win over fiscal hawks such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who had threatened to vote against the megabill due to concerns about the deficit. 5 Sen. Jim Banks hailed the legislative bundle for slashing green energy subsidies. Getty Images In addition to the Medicaid reform, senators also defended the cuts to Biden-era renewable energy subsidies, something that has infuriated tech mogul and one-time Trump 'first buddy' Elon Musk. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk fumed on X Saturday. 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' The Senate version of the megabill significantly rolls back tax credits for green energy in the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act and requires key projects to go into service by the conclusion of 2027 to qualify. It also features an excise tax that takes aim at solar and wind projects. 'Again, $1.6 trillion in spending cuts by eliminating the Green New Deal tax credits. Those scams that were passed during the Biden administration,' Banks added. 'Much of it is phased out in a quick period of time over the next two or three years.'
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
A $40 million flameout in New Jersey's race for governor puts scrutiny on teachers union
TRENTON, New Jersey — New Jersey's most politically influential union funneled more than $40 million into this year's race for governor — only to land with a fifth-place finish. Now, its political instincts are in question. The New Jersey Education Association made its largest investment in a campaign to support its president, Sean Spiller, in his longshot bid for the governor's mansion. No other special interest group has ever spent as much in state history to promote a single candidate, a sign of an increase of big money in state races following the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Spiller struggled to raise his own funds — so much so that he didn't qualify for debates in the Democratic primary. He largely offloaded his campaign infrastructure to a super PAC backing his candidacy, Working New Jersey, which was funded indirectly by the union. The super PAC's spending is among the most an independent expenditure group has dropped in a gubernatorial election nationwide. Publicly, many lawmakers and union members are hesitant to speak out against the NJEA, which remains in a class of its own when it comes to political influence and has about 200,000 members across the state. But in the aftermath of a multimillion-dollar debacle, some in Trenton are starting to question the union's political prowess. Democratic state Sen. Vin Gopal, chair of the Senate Education Committee, called the spending 'concerning' and said that he's 'talked to a lot of the teachers here in Monmouth [County] and they're pretty frustrated.' 'I think the strength of the NJEA will be questioned after these election results,' Gopal said. 'How does it not?' The bet was that if union turnout was high, Spiller would be able to eke out a win. Spiller ended up earning 10 percent of the vote, a distant fifth behind Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), who won the nomination with 34 percent. But he earned close to 30,000 more votes than former state Senate President Steve Sweeney — a foe of the NJEA in a previous campaign. It's not the first time the union has lost a pricey gamble. In 2017, the union spent around $5 million to oust Sweeney — which at the time was considered the most expensive state legislative race in American history. The effort was unsuccessful and Sweeney won by 17 points against his Republican opponent. One former high-level NJEA official, granted anonymity to talk freely about their former employer, said that the millions spent 'didn't seem like a good investment' and could impact its ability to advocate for teachers in Trenton. 'The NJEA leadership's credibility I believe has been diminished as it relates to going into the Statehouse and fighting for issues for the association,' the person said, adding that local education associations' 'power remains the same.' A more complete picture of the union's spending will not be available until June 30, when the latest campaign finance reports covering the final two weeks of the primary are due. But as of May 27, Working New Jersey received $40 million from Garden State Forward, a separate group funded exclusively by the NJEA. Working New Jersey spent $37 million of that as of last month. Garden State Forward also sent $8 million to another pro-Spiller group, Protecting Our Democracy, that was boosting him last year. The NJEA's investment was the largest amount of spending by a single entity (excluding self-funded candidates and wealthy individuals) in a gubernatorial race from 2010 — when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for unlimited super PAC spending — through 2024, according to an analysis of state-level spending from American Promise, a nonprofit that advocates for a constitutional amendment to allow limits on political spending. It's been more than a decade since the Citizens United ruling. Though it applied to federal political spending, it has also virtually eliminated state efforts imposing restrictions on super PACs. 'New Jersey didn't choose to have a campaign system like this,' said Jeff Clements, CEO of American Promise. 'It was imposed by lawyers in the Supreme Court. It only gets worse until we fix the constitutional problem the court created.' Still, there are attempts to diminish super PACs' influence. New York City has increased its coordination rules, which cracks down on candidates' efforts to signal to these outside groups. Public financing systems are also intended to curb big campaign donors. But although New Jersey does have a public financing program for gubernatorial candidates, which was implemented prior to Citizens United, it still led to massive outside spending this year. 'After Citizens United, you saw sort of a gradual uptick in big money in federal elections, and the states have been sort of catching up,' said Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel and manager of the elections and government program at the Brennan Center for Justice. 'So I think we're seeing the kind of the new heights of big money in the states, and that's not going to go away.' The NJEA's spending in the primary has even exceeded outside spending in congressional races, which are typically more expensive than state-level elections. The most spent by a single committee in independent expenditures for a primary was $19 million by Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC that boosted now-Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) in the 2022 Senate primary, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Despite that heavy spending, McCormick lost in that primary. 'I think it was a very poorly calculated and piss-poor decision by the NJEA to blow that kind of money and the results prove that,' said John Napolitani, a local mayor and head of Asbury Park schools teachers' union. 'I don't even think the membership realized how much of their dollars were spent on this race, basically for a loss.' The union has previously pushed back on criticism about its political spending — particularly from the Sunlight Policy Center, an organization devoted to researching and countering the NJEA — as 'anti-union propaganda.' NJEA Secretary-Treasurer Petal Robertson in a statement to POLITICO condemned 'politicians who have gladly accepted significant financial support from NJEA members many times for their own campaigns' who have come out against the spending for Spiller. 'They never question why our members choose to support them,' Robertson said. 'They do often ask why we don't give more, so they aren't concerned about NJEA members investing in electoral advocacy. The concern only seems to arise when that investment goes to someone outside of the established political power structure. We know the usual naysayers, and they can continue with the same tired attacks, but we know our power and we own it.' At the Statehouse, some people see the investment in Spiller as business as usual. Democratic state Sen. Shirley Turner said that the union has long put its thumb on the scale in elections. 'You know, they do it all the time, it seems,' Turner, vice-chair of the Senate Education Committee, said in an interview. 'I don't know if this is any different than previously, they pick candidates, and they decide to support them in all ways, you know, including funding.' The union famously fought with Republican former Gov. Chris Christie — who likened the group to the mafia — during his eight years in office. That feud between the union and the right in New Jersey may carry on — Republican Jack Ciattarelli, his party's nominee for governor, accused Sherrill of rushing to 'suck up to the NJEA and embrace the guy who just lit $40 million of [teachers'] dues money on fire these past few months' in a recent social media post. 'What an insult to New Jersey's hard-working educators,' Ciattarelli added. Sherrill's campaign declined to comment when asked her thoughts on the NJEA's spending in the primary. It's common for teachers unions around the country to engage in political spending, though rarely to the extent of the NJEA. Notably in 2023, the Chicago Teachers Union spent more than $2 million to get its member and organizer Brandon Johnson into the mayorship. On the federal level, from 2023-2024, the National Education Association dropped $32 million on political spending (primarily to liberal groups), making it the top spender among teachers unions, according to OpenSecrets. The NJEA blew past that total in a state-level race in just a couple of months. The NJEA had a Herculean task in uplifting Spiller, who struggled to solidify his lane in the six-person primary and faced controversy during his time as mayor of Montclair. Despite Spiller's second-to-last finish, election results suggest his message — and the union's big spending — resonated in pockets of the state. He unexpectedly won Camden — a major city in South Jersey — and won Cumberland County, a rural area that has been trending quickly towards Republicans. But in Montclair, he finished in fifth. Bob Russo, a former mayor and member of the town council, said Spiller's tenure as mayor did not make him beloved by the town's rank-and-file Democrats. 'He's really not embraced by his hometown. That's your base,' he said. 'It's a shame he couldn't get more support, but it's because of [his] policies and the conduct as mayor.' Spiller's tenure as president is up this August. He'll be succeeded by Steve Beatty, the union's current vice president. After Spiller's loss, Beatty and Robertson in a statement touted the 'unprecedented grassroots effort powered by thousands of member volunteers' and congratulated Sherrill. Beatty acknowledged that 'in a six-way race with five other well-known and well-funded candidates … there were always going to be five candidates who came up short.' He also said that endorsing Spiller ensured that issues important to the union 'were part of the conversation in the primary.' 'We are proud that Sean was right there in the race alongside those candidates with deeper ties to New Jersey's political and financial elites,' he continued. 'It says a lot about how hard our members fought to change the narrative around who is qualified to step up and lead.' Unions from different sectors also spent in the race in support of other candidates, though not as much as the NJEA. And while other Democrats did outraise Spiller, no other independent expenditure groups boosting his opponents had as many resources as Working New Jersey. As of the end of May, two groups supporting Rep. Josh Gottheimer spent more than $11 million, as did two groups backing Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, and super PACs backing Sherrill and Sweeney spent around $4 million each. Other union leaders stand by the multimillion-dollar decision. 'I do think it was worth it,' said Melissa Tomlinson, vice-president of the Atlantic County Council of Education Associations and a member of NJEA's state executive committee. 'We need our voices heard in decision-making spaces. It's not enough for us to just be lobbying.' The NJEA counts around 200,000 members, and it's evident that not even half of them voted for their union president, who received less than 90,000 votes. 'If you were to ask [teachers] 'Is this how you want your monies used' — for a sitting president to spend millions of dollars to run for governor — they would say no,' the former high-level NJEA official said. 'And how do I think they would say no? The numbers that did not vote for him on Election Day is proof.' The union has not yet determined how it will engage in the general election. Beatty said that 'NJEA members will consider who to support in November in all the races,' and both Ciattarelli and Sherrill will be invited to partake in the endorsement screening process. In past elections, the NJEA has been a prominent spender post-primary. The union has consistently endorsed Democrats for governor, and it doesn't appear that will change anytime soon. Ciattarelli supports policies like school vouchers, which are a non-starter for the union. When asked at a recent event if she would seek the NJEA's support, Sherrill told reporters that her 'door is open to everyone.' Throughout the primary, Spiller pushed back on criticisms about the union's spending, asserting that he was not in charge of how that money was spent. He also often argued that the union represents working-class people, as opposed to big-dollar donors. 'It's never about me,' Spiller said during the primary. 'This is about, how do we change systems? How do we fight for somebody who's gonna fight for working class folks? And that never stops.'
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Virginia Democrat: Trump bill will be ‘political albatross' for Republicans
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Sunday that President Trump's megabill will be a 'political albatross' for Republicans back at home. In an interview on CBS News's 'Face the Nation,' moderator Margaret Brennan noted that the GOP tax and spending bill, which just cleared a key hurdle in the Senate Saturday night, includes some policies that Democrats have championed. 'You can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want. This will be a political albatross for the Republicans,' Warner said, suggesting the individual policy add-ons don't justify supporting the bill overall. 'It takes 16 million Americans off of health care coverage, with cuts to Medicaid and cuts to the Obamacare marketplace. That will move us, as a nation, back to the same percentage of uninsured we had before Obamacare,' Warner said when asked to expand on his thinking. Warner also said the Medicaid cuts will affect everyone — not just those on Medicaid. 'And, it's not like these people are not going to get sick. They're going to show up at the emergency room' without coverage, he said, adding, 'The only way those costs get passed on is higher health insurance to all of us who have traditional coverage.' He also criticized the bill for cutting funds to food assistance and adding trillions to the debt. 'Are we really in such a place that we're cutting, in my state, a couple hundred thousand people off of school lunches, school breakfasts? They even cut food banks. It's cruel,' he said, adding, 'This was to make sure that the highest, most wealthy Americans can get an extra tax-break.' Warner said he thinks his Republican colleagues 'know they're walking the plank on this, and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their convictions.' He also noted that the bill has not made it through to the president's desk, adding, 'It's not over until it's over.' 'I will grant that President Trump has been able to hold his party in line in an unprecedented manner. At the other end, this bill will come back and bite them. This is going to do so much damage in terms of, not only health care, food assistance, you know, the whole notion that we are moving towards cleaner energy jobs, all on the chopping block, adding $4 trillion to the debt,' Warner said. 'Tell me, at the end of the day, how that is good for America? I don't think you can make the case,' he added.
