NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Responds to the American Academy of Pediatrics

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 21, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


National Organization for Marriage

"We are disappointed that the American Academy of Pediatrics has taken the transparently political step of endorsing same-sex marriage in an attempt to influence the US Supreme Court." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — Today, Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage president, released the following statement regarding the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing same-sex marriage:

"We are disappointed that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has taken the transparently political step of endorsing same-sex marriage in an attempt to influence the US Supreme Court. They have done a grave disservice to America’s children by endorsing a policy that intentionally deprives children of either a mother or a father. Their position seems to be that the unique contributions of both mothers and fathers do not matter. Which parent can a child do without — her mother or her father?

The AAP has not conducted any new research to justify their preposterous conclusion, adding evidence that it is a political act, not a scientific one. Instead, they have reviewed a series of studies produced by gay children. As was reported by respected Louisiana State University researcher Loren Marks, virtually every study to date has involved small samples and hand-selected participants. None of them utilize large-sample, randomly selected participants — a key requirement to rigorous research.

One recent large-scale random sample study that has been produced by University of Texas researchers found that those raised in a same-sex household fared worse than those raised in intact heterosexual families on two-thirds of outcomes measured. Nowhere in the AAP statement do they address the confounding scientific evidence by Regnerus, Marks, Sirota and Allen — all published in peer-reviewed journals. The AAP simply ignores them.

We remain confident that the US Supreme Court will uphold the ability of states and the federal government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a definition that has served our nation well for hundreds of years."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

37 Comments

  1. Ash
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    There are several questions one could ask the AAP, including: "Why aren't they concerned about children being raised in other households ineligible to marry in states with ssm? In short, why the focus of unrelated same-sex adults in a romantic relationship?" "What do they make of research that shows children do no reap any benefits in terms of well-being when raised in married step-parent families?"

    It would also be helpful to know what evidence the AAP cited about same-sex parenting, and then to see SSMers apply the same exacting research standards to those studies that they applied to Regnerus's.

  2. Brad
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Brown, I don't know how you can live with yourself with all the twisting and deceit you do. But God will be your judge. First, the children the AAP is referring to are already headed by same sex couples. They are not being ripped away from the bosom of their mother. It is these children that would benefit if their parents could marry. And it's your organization that is doing everything it can to keep these children disadvantaged. And then to even mention your trash UT study is an insult to the AAP.

  3. Brad
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    @Ash. The Regenerus study is trash and everyone knows it!!

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Why is the AAP not concerned with the high incidence of alcoholism among lesbians, and how that might affect children in their possession?

    One negative affect is that these children are likely to cover for their guardians, thus further enabling them to continue in their destructive behavior.

  5. bman
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Looks like this belongs here instead of the other thread where I posted it

    LHF->It's dismaying to see the American Academy of Pediatrics come out in support of genderless marriage "for the children." Is there a back story?

    Several years ago a leaked email from within AAP revealed a disconnect between AAP members and the AAP leadership.

    It said,

    ".......the AAP has received more messages almost all of them CRITICAL from members about the recent Policy Statement on coparent [gay step parent] adoption than it has EVER received on any other topic

    This is a serious problem, as it means that it will become harder to continue the work we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change. "

    It appears political activists are at the helm of the AAP and the membership has been disenfranchised.

    Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, lead agency for the psychological profession, described a similar situation within that agency.

    The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity. The public can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than from what it regards to be politically correct......

    At the present time the governance of the APA is vested in an elitist group of 200 psychologists who rotate themselves in a kind of “musical chairs” throughout all the various offices, boards, committees, and the Council of Representatives.

    The vast majority of the 100,000 members are essentially disenfranchised.

    At the 2006 APA Convention in New Orleans I gave a speech, “Psychology and the APA Need Reform,” which was widely circulated on psychology listserves but has been totally ignored by the leadership of APA. It is not going to reform itself out of office!

    By the way, the American College of Pediatricians, a different group than the AAP, represents former members of the AAP who the left it because of AAP's gay activism preventing good science.
    ------
    (Links to above quotations can be located by a web search using the quoted text. Links not added to avoid moderation delay)

  6. Randy E King
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption supporters, by and large, exhibit every single characteristic of your a-typical sociopath:

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

    1.Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
    2.Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
    3.Authoritarian
    4.Secretive
    5.Paranoid
    6.Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
    7.Conventional appearance
    8.Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
    9.Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
    10.Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
    11.Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
    12.Incapable of real human attachment to another
    13.Unable to feel remorse or guilt
    14.Extreme narcissism and grandiose
    15.May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

  7. Frank
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 1:29 am | Permalink

    Randy, you are such a dork.

  8. leviticus
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 4:05 am | Permalink

    It's sad that the homosexual agenda has infected these once fine organizations that now are making a mockery out of science and fact-finding.

  9. Jenny
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    @Ash, why not ask the AAP your questions ? :)

  10. Apollonia
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    ... and let us not forget the earth is flat, 5000 years old and orbited by the sun!!!

    People like NOM are an American product of outselling education to so called churches and homeschooling.

  11. Forrest
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    And counterfeit marriage supporters are usually the by- product of the failed and utterly dismal American public education system.
    It is what it is.

  12. Ash
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    @Brad, the Regnerus study is the best one we have on the subject to date.

    @Jenny, even before I get around to asking them, it would be great if the AAP first responded to Loren Marks' criticisms of the same-sex parenting studies. His remarks were quoted in the various news outlets reporting on the AAP's endorsement of ssm.

  13. Richard
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Forrest, supply your credentials that allow you to speak of the entire education system with such vehemence.

  14. Sammy
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Good point Ash, the Regenerus study is the best one your have on your side. A study that did not study children living in same-sex headed households now being used to say that same-sex headed households are inferior to opposite-sex headed households. That is the best that you have.

  15. Ash
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    @Sammy, Regnerus's study is the best one done to date on the matter of same-sex parenting. It doesn't answer critical questions on the impact of same-sex parenting on children, as the researchers, unfortunately, didn't find enough stable same-sex households to measure. But guess what? The studies cited by the likes of the APA don't answer critical questions on the impact of same-sex parenting either. Those studies don't even begin to touch Regnerus's in terms of design, methodological rigor, representativeness, etc.

    While Regnerus and others view his work as a springboard to better research on same-sex parenting, SSMers are using studies with samples as small as 18 children raised by wealthy, White women to say that the scholarly consensus is "settled."

    Studies lacking direct comparisons between children raised by married biological parents to those raised by same-sex couples are now being used to say that children raised by same-sex couples do better than children raised by married, biological parents--never minding the fact that the entire body of research is focused on lesbians, not gay male couples!

    That's the best you have.

  16. Sammy
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    How is the Regenerus study "the best one done to date on the matter of same-sex parenting" when it didn't study same-sex households? At best it demonstrates that the "you can marry anyone of the opposite sex" that NOM followers love to suggest to gay people is not an effective family structure. The emperor has no study.

  17. Sammy
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    You keep saying that the Regenerus study is the best on the matter of same-sex parenting, but it doesn't study same-sex couples. Do you not see the disconnect in that statement? The best that we have is so much better than the nothing that you have.

  18. Randy E King
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    @Sammy,

    The Regenerus study is the only recognized Gold Standard study related to this topic...ever!

    Your insistence on declaring superior those blatantly bias surveys in support of your depravity only serves to prove what a disreputable character you actually are.

  19. Sammy
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Gold Standard, Mr. King? A study that has no relation to that which you claim it refutes. I can't wait to see Mr. Regenerus deposed. I only wish you'd be called to the stand as well. A sure win that would be for us.

  20. Ash
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    @Sammy,

    Regnerus's study does have something to do with same-sex parenting. It's a description of the population of adults who have ever lived under the custody of a same-sex couple.

    What we can interpret from the study is limited, but that does not mean that the study has nothing to do with same-sex parenting. Those included in the study are far more geographically, racially, and economically diverse than those cherry-picked from lesbian enclaves in the other "no differences" studies. More importantly, the children exposed to same-sex relationships were compared to the optimal family structure (married-intact), breaking from the previous decisions of researchers to use single mothers and like as a control group.

    Regnerus's study is the beginning of what will, hopefully, be more methodologically sound research on the topic.

  21. Posted March 23, 2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    "They have done a grave disservice to America’s children by endorsing a policy that intentionally deprives children of either a mother or a father. "

    I totally agree. And perez Hilton's photos with his manufactured son makes one want to vomit. The egotism, the selfishness, the complete disdain and insensitivity such a homosexual feels about the rights of children to have both a mother and a father- as a married couple, and who are capable of a loving, heterosexual relationship.

    Instead of resolving their homosexuality problem, homosexuals must inflict their deformed psychologies and relationship problems on their children- who have no right to choose anything and must be subjected to any deformed parent with a homosexuality problem that has enough money to manufacture them.

  22. Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    "They have done a grave disservice to America’s children by endorsing a policy that intentionally deprives children of either a mother or a father. "

    And it's time decent, concerned, and ethical pediatrics broke away from such a corrupted organization. We need a pediatric organization that upholds children's rights, instead of this travesty of homosexual agenda.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    "I only wish you'd be called to the stand as well"

    I do to!

    Having blogged my opposition to this usurpation of peoples will these past four years I have witness the reuse of my counter-points by more than a few Judges and Politicians.

    My edgy responses may have gotten be banned quite a few times, but now those responses are common place across the blogosphere. The truth may be uncomfortable at first, but it inevitably becomes the drug of choice for all those exposed to it.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    The ABA, APA, AAP, UAW, AMA, and the like exist for one reason; to get their respective members paid. These groups lobby for the good of their members and themselves; not the good of the people they conspire to fleece.

  25. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Randy, you forgot to add NOM to the list.

  26. Randy E King
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    NOM is a Non-profit; the other are for profit. Are you completely incapable of recognizing differences in all things?

    If so; that would explain a lot!

  27. Richard
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    LOL, tell Brian Brown that Randy. NOM's profit is Brown's payroll.

  28. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Maggie Gallagher's comment on National Review identified a key problem with the AAP endorsement

    There are at least four reviews or studies in peer-reviewed literature that contest the claim that children do equally well with same-sex parents. (Regnerus, Marks, Sirota, Allen).

    None of which are mentioned by the American Academy of Pediatricians in their endorsement of gay marriage. ...

  29. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Ash-@Sammy -> Regnerus's study does have something to do with same-sex parenting. It's a description of the population of adults who have ever lived under the custody of a same-sex couple.

    Waiting on how Sammy will respond to that one!

  30. John B.
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    "Regnerus's study does have something to do with same-sex parenting. It's a description of the population of adults who have ever lived under the custody of a same-sex couple."

    Ash, exactly how many of the subjects in the Regnerus study were raised by same-sex couples?

    I'll wait for your answer.

  31. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    John B->.... exactly how many of the subjects in the Regnerus study were raised by same-sex couples?

    The Regnerus study describes itself as follows:

    .....it is a study of young adults [18-39] .....raised by parents that had a same-sex relationship....

    ....it is a much larger study than nearly all of its peers...interviewed just under 3000 respondents, including 175 who reported their mother having had a same-sex romantic relationship and 73 who said the same about their father....

    ....Among those who said their mother had a same-sex relationship...7% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least 4 months at some point prior to age 18. A smaller share (23%) said they had spent at least 3 years living in the same household with a romantic partner of their mother’s.

    Among those who said their father had a same-sex relationship, however, 42% reported living with him while he was in a same-sex romantic relationship, and 23% reported living with him and his partner for at least 4 months (but less than 2% said they had spent at least 3 years together in the same household), a trend similarly noted in Tasker’s (2005) review article on gay and lesbian parenting.

  32. bman
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Correction: ...[ 57%] said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least 4 months...

  33. Chairm
    Posted March 23, 2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Stable same-sex sexualized relationships are relatively rare in terms of having raised children from infancy to adulthood. Whether that rarity is due to a high degree of instability in general (the all-female scenario unstable due to ill-health stemming from emotional conflicts and the all-male unstable due to ill-health stemming from physical abuses of the body) or due to the intrinsically non-fertility of the lack of the other sex, or some other feature of set of features among the target population, this rarity is well-documented and -- one would think -- rather reasonable to expect.

    Does rarity mean it is a negative scenario? Not in forthright use of social scientific terms, nope. But what is the social scientific narrative for explaining the rarity -- and at the same time decrying the lack of conclusive evidence in favor or in disfavor of same-sex parenting?

  34. Chairm
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    SSMers do love to declare conclusions without conclusive evidence. And they do like to promise more than the evidence has or can deliver.

  35. Chairm
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    This bespeaks of political coloring of what little social scientific evidence there is available on the very things that the SSMers declare and promise so very much.

    When challenged forthrightly, the intellectually honest SSMers will shrug and say that children are irrelevant to the SSM idea anyway. And so it is.

    Her is what we do know. We know that the lack of either mom or dad does change the family structure in such a way that sex-segregative parenting, of which the SSMers advocate but one variety (a gaycentric variety of some sort), is known to fall short of the benchmark of married mom and dad in a low conflict relationship. The sort of relationship that society has an interest in promoting, preferring, and rewarding -- not just through government policy. Government should not get in the way; government should not obscure the value to society of this unique type of relationship between a man and a woman.

  36. Chairm
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    We also know that re-forming families -- blending broken families together -- also falls short of the benchmark. We know this from many types of such scenarios which are comprised of man-woman duos of one kind or another. This is not to say that adoption, step-parenting, and grandparent-parent scenarios are evil or harmful; it is to point out that we have social scientific evidence that forewarns us of the perils of disuniting motherhood and fatherhood and of not providing for responsible procreation.

  37. Chairm
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:47 am | Permalink

    We know much about one-sex-short parenting scenarios; we know much about broken families; we know much about subsequent efforts to restructure families in various ways.

    There is nothing on offer by the SSM advocates that would make gay identity a magic tonic that changes outcomes for children to be as good as the benchmark that all these other scenarios have fall short of when matched-up. SSM is not distinguishable, really, in terms of improving outcomes for children.

    The contrary is probably likely and it is sad that SSMers are demanding that we experiment much more so that we might accumulate social scientific evidence a few generations forward. They can give no sound social scientific narrative for this pursuit. Evidence is not what they have in mind, really, but rather the sound of the declarations and promises, today, give false comfort that the real world will upend reality.