NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Children

"SCOTUS is Not the Final Word on Marriage"

NOM President and co-founder Brian Brown discusses the future of marriage today in the Washington Examiner:

Words in FamilyThis not the first time that the Court has relied on its own conception of liberty to justify a decision. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in which a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional because of the implied right of slaveholders. African Americans were thus not people entitled to the rights of citizens, but instead property subject to the will of their masters.

In terms of its legal reasoning, the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is the Dred Scott decision of our time. It is illegitimate and completing lacking in constitutional authority. It is the product of unaccountable judges legislating from the bench, usurping the role of elected officials and voters and imposing a social policy on the nation because they think they know best.

And like Dred Scott, America need not accept it as the final word, the "law of the land" or even a decision worthy of respect.

...The decision last week is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage. NOM is committed to overturning this ruling and containing its effects.

This is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle to protect marriage. Read on to learn about three major steps that NOM is taking to reverse this unjust ruling. We will not rest until the injustice of this decision is undone and marriage is restored to our nation's laws as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman.

 

How to Respond to SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution. - Ryan Anderson

While the decision of the Supreme Court is both tragic and unsurprising, marriage supporters should not give up hope. While the ruling is a disappointment, it is by no means the deciding outcome in the war on marriage. Marriage has always been defined by nature as between one man and one woman. No matter what laws the Supreme Court Justices change, they cannot change the truth.

Ryan Anderson offers encouraging words and advice on how marriage defenders can continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined - the union between one man and one woman:

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

You can read Anderson’s full article at The Daily Signal.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Our Very Way of Life is on the Line

By now you should be prepared for the worst. There is a strong possibility (many say high likelihood) that the Supreme Court will impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire nation either tomorrow or Monday. While this would be an illegitimate and lawless ruling (because there is no constitutional authority for it), we must remember that man-made law never supersedes natural law. “Marriage” will ever remain the union between a man and a woman because its unique meaning and purpose is to bring together the two halves of humanity to provide the best environment for raising children.

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace, a longtime friend of NOM’s, has penned a provocative article in Conservative Review where he points out that a negative ruling will prove to be a boon to the marriage movement over time, just as Roe v. Wade reinvigorated the pro-life movement. The first benefit, he predicts, will be to separate out the true conservatives in the field of GOP presidential candidates from those who are only pretending to be conservative:

stk308123rkn

All of our other options of faux coexistence and kicking the can down the road are over. The age of feigned tolerance is at an end and – behold! – the age of forced compliance is now at hand.

We are about to find out why there was so much bravery at the Alamo—because there was no backdoor. There will be no fence to straddle. There will be no neutrality. There will be no polls or elections we supposedly have to win with a gutless establishment Republican we rationalize as an excuse to punt. There will only be “choose ye this day whom you will serve.”

No less than our very way of life is on the line. Such as:

-Marriage, the most fundamentally important institution of a civilized society
-Federalism, which is our most basic form of governance
-The constitutional rule of law and separation of powers
-The will of the people, as in the over 50 million Americans that voted to enshrine marriage in their state constitutions
-The Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment's religious freedom protections in clear and present danger

Any so-called Republican or religious leader that is willing to respond to such a blitzkrieg on liberty with tripe like “the courts have spoken” or “it’s time to move on” is a charlatan, and there’s no way they’d defend our liberties against any other Leftist assault, either.

You can read the full article at Conservative Review.

What is the Real Goal of “Marriage Equality”?

Even states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples continue to distinguish between marriage and same-sex “marriage” for many purposes.

In an article on The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, asks the crucial question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” really want?

ThinkstockPhotos-75461595Massachusetts and New York continue to treat marriage and same-sex coupling differently. Despite eliminating from law the fundamental predicate that every marriage involves a man and a woman and binds the father and the mother of any children that result from the union, the courts and lawmakers of Massachusetts and New York have left in place incidents of marriage that presuppose this predicate. Yet proponents of marriage equality are not flooding the Massachusetts or New York courts with lawsuits to eliminate those incidents.

This raises a question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” want? If they are asking for governments to make marriage and same-sex couples the same in law, then they are asking for governments to eliminate the incidents of marriage that connect children to their natural parents. If same-sex “marriage” proponents are not asking governments to eliminate those legal securities for children, then they are not asking for full marriage equality.

. . .

The reality of same-sex “marriage” has not yet caught up with the logic; for now, Massachusetts still distinguishes between real marriage and same-sex “marriage.” But even if some of the incidents securing the rights and duties of parents and their children remain in place, the inchoate effort to achieve marriage equality harms the culture of marriage and thereby harms the children whom marriage is supposed to protect, particularly the least well-off.

These are costs of the as-yet-unsuccessful effort to make marriage and same-sex couplings the same in law. The law teaches, and people are prone to learn from it. The law of same-sex “marriage” is that man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, are fungible. A marriage can be a marriage without one or the other, according to the desires of the adults involved. Thus, the law of states such as Massachusetts reinforces a culture that devalues fathers and mothers as people with distinct duties toward their children.

Ultimately, the goal of the “marriage equality movement” is to destroy the family. When you take away the one man and one woman stipulation from marriage, you turn marriage into a mere legality signifying the preferences of two adults, and you demean children into “options.” We will never stop defending marriage as the union between one man and woman, because we believe that men and women are both uniquely different and essential, and children are not “mere options,” but the embodiment of hope for the future.

For the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

Big Surprise: Abstinence and Monogamy Are Best For Society

While the Federal Government has always admitted that monogamy and abstinence is a “reliable” way to prevent the transmission of STDs, they are now conceding that abstinence before marriage, paired with monogamy, is the most reliable way to prevent spreading STDs.

ThinkstockPhotos-462354181Even though the Federal Government would never dare to state it, in advocating monogamy and abstinence, they are tacitly confirming that what is best for society is marriage between one man and one woman, who are exclusive to each other, and are examples to their children of how the complementarity between a man and a woman lays the foundation for our society to flourish.

As reported by The Daily Signal:

The federal government is now calling abstinence and monogamy “the most reliable way to avoid transmission of STDs,” rather than just “a reliable way.”

This change was made in the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest version of its Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, released earlier this month.

Beyond avoiding STDs, there are multiple other benefits from abstinence and monogamy.

For example, researchers at the Austin Institute report, “High numbers of sexual partners, as well as concurrent sexual partners, are not only a public health concern because of the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections, but have also been linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.”

. . .

A strong culture of marriage—where sex is linked to marriage and marriage is linked to childbearing—provides benefits for both adults and children, including better health, more stable and happier marriages, and protection from poverty and negative life outcomes for children. Leaders at every level should look for ways to help build and maintain a healthy culture of marriage.

For the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.

The Decision on Marriage Should Not Be Rushed

"Expanding the definition of marriage away from the way cultures and civilization have always defined it can only lead to further confusion.” - Rev. Russell Moore

As the world readies for the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, defenders of marriage are urging the justices to take into account all the known effects that redefining marriage would bring upon our nation.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that now is the time for marriage to be redefined, because the “popular opinion” promulgated by the media is that marriage should be redefined. In contrast, marriage champions are asking the Supreme Court to look at the facts, look at what is actually written in the constitution, and look at what is best for the children.

While the media may very well be against us, NOM will never give up fighting for marriage, for freedom, and for truth.

ThinkstockPhotos-494897031The idea that same-sex marriage might have uncertain effects on children is strongly contested by those who want the court to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in all 50 states. Among the 31 plaintiffs in the cases that will be argued at the court on April 28 are parents who have spent years seeking formal recognition on their children's birth certificates or adoption papers.

But opponents, in dozens of briefs asking the court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, insist they are not motivated by any prejudice toward gays and lesbians.

"This is an issue on which people of good will may reasonably disagree," lawyer John Bursch wrote in his defense of Michigan's gay-marriage ban. Bursch argued on behalf of the states that same-sex couples can claim no constitutional right to marriage.

. . .

The concern for children is among several threads that run through the legal, political, social and religious arguments being advanced in support of upholding the same-sex marriage bans.

"If children don't do as well when they are raised by same-sex parents, why would we want to establish or encourage that as a social norm?" asked the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociology professor. Sullins has analyzed data in government surveys and concluded that children brought up by two parents of the same sex have a higher rate of emotional problems than their peers raised by heterosexual parents.

Sullins has been harshly criticized by sociologists who support same-sex marriage, but he said he stands by his data. "I don't know of any Catholic way to compute the equation," he said. "The idea that there are no differences is emphatically mistaken. I don't know how else to say that."

For the full article, please visit 12NewsNow.

What About the Children Who Want a Mom and a Dad?

Ryan Anderson, a long time friend of NOM and a formidable defender of marriage, calls attention to an important group that many media outlets overlook - children, raised by same-sex couples, who want a mom and a dad:

ThinkstockPhotos-494373553The New York Times ran an article this weekend profiling and quoting many children of gay and lesbian parents under the headline “What Could Gay Marriage Mean for the Kids?”

Noticeably absent were any children who, while loving their two moms or two dads, yearned for both a mom and dad.

In my new book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” I devote a chapter to highlighting the stories of children of gays and lesbians who have spoken out about how redefining marriage has social costs. Their basic story is the same: Same-sex marriage denies children like them a relationship with either a mother or a father—denies them their mother or their father.

Worse yet, people claiming marriage must be redefined as a matter of justice are telling children that the hurt they feel isn’t a legitimate response to objective reality but the result of their own misguided feelings. This is nothing less than victim shaming.

Although the loss suffered by these child victims is real and traumatic, their existence is never acknowledged by The New York Times.

. . .

Redefining marriage redefines parenting. So a legal system that redefines marriage changes a society’s culture and the values it promotes—as well as the expectations of its citizens. A society that redefines marriage, writes Barwick, “promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.”

Redefining marriage will stigmatize the children of same-sex couples, because they will not be allowed to give voice to their experience of lacking a mom or a dad.

For the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.

"Shall We Cancel Father’s Day?"

Father Robert McTeigue, a professor of philosophy at Ave Maria University, asked that provocative question after an email he receive brought into focus the state of the family in our culture, and why marriage must be protected in order to solidify the family:

ThinkstockPhotos-177876724There was a time when if you wanted to annoy someone, you could just say, “Merry Christmas!” Now it seems that if you want to get people really upset, you can say, “Happy Father’s Day!”

I say this because of a message I recently received from someone close to me: “Rant for today. I want to publicly thank my husband for being one of the most loving, compassionate and dedicated fathers I know. Today I helped out in the oldest of my two daughters’ first grade class while the kids were making cards and filling out questionnaires about their dads for Father's Day. Out of 29 kids about 7 could do it without help or getting upset. The poor teacher had to go through questions like ‘Well, how often do you see your dad? Is there an uncle who helps? Well, does your mom have a friend? Is it a man?’ As I helped the kids fill out the sheets there were SO many who obviously had poor relationships with their dads, if any at all. So many children wouldn't check the box for ‘Dad hugs me’ or ‘Dad plays with me.’ 3 of the kids were shaking and teary eyed. I am overwhelmed with sadness. My husband doesn't have a 9-5 job. I've seen this man come home to have supper with his family, put the girls to bed, go BACK to work and then get up after a few hours to have breakfast with us and take them to school. He's left meetings to go to a reading of the children’s book, ‘Stone Soup’. He's seen the movie ‘Frozen’ 700 times. He's had bows in his hair, glitter on his nails and has made cardboard armor. I got on my knees in gratitude.

ThinkstockPhotos-474323365Men, please understand how important you are. Kids NEED BOTH of their parents!! Be loving! Be involved!! I was heartbroken. When I told my husband he cried too. I did not expect that so many cultures have inactive dads. One mom said to me ‘Well shame on the school for bringing out an activity that would be hurtful to the kids’ and I said ‘NO! Shame on US for allowing our culture to have broken families!’ I'm gonna go squeeze my kids and write my husband a love note. Rant done.”

Rather than an awkward silence, we need to have an honest, thoughtful, lively and prolonged conversation about men, fatherhood, the needs of children to have both a mother and a father (Pope Francis said that children have a right to both), and the ill effects of growing up without a father . . . “

For the full article, please visit Aleteia.

Pope Francis: Children Need a Mom and a Dad

Last Sunday, June 14, 2015, Pope Francis stressed the importance of children having both a mom and a dad, further emphasizing that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman:

ThinkstockPhotos-154331985Addressing around 25,000 followers from the Diocese of Rome, the pope said the differences between men and women are fundamental and “an integral part of being human.”

The pontiff likened a long-lasting marriage to a good wine, in which a husband and wife make the most of their gender differences.

“They’re not scared of the differences!” the pope said. “What great richness this diversity is, a diversity which becomes complementary, but also reciprocal. It binds them, one to the other.”

Heterosexual marriages not only ensured couples’ happiness, the pontiff said, but were deemed essential for good parenting.

“Children mature seeing their father and mother like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father and mother have, confronted with this difference,” Francis said.

Full article is available via Religion News Service

There is a Fundamental Marriage Right

In a recent article from The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, author of Property and Practical Reason, explains that there is not only a fundamental right to marriage, but that we, as Americans, have the responsibility to preserve it:

ThinkstockPhotos-168759151Adam Seagrave recently argued that there is no fundamental right to marry. He criticized Supreme Court decisions to the contrary on Lockean grounds. Fundamental rights are rooted in self-ownership, Seagrave argues, and are therefore inherently individual rights. The right to marry is not an individual right, is relatively new, and is inconsistent with America’s political tradition.

Whether or not Locke would approve of it, there is a fundamental marriage right. It is ancient, not recent. And it secures the integrity of the natural family. Seagrave’s resistance to the Court’s expansive substantive due process doctrine, which secures what Justice Brandeis called “conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness,” is laudable. But his proposal to dispose of the Court’s marriage jurisprudence would throw the baby—and the baby’s mother and father—out with the bathwater.

Like the rights to life, liberty, and property, which Seagrave affirms, the right of marriage is a so-called negative right—a liberty secured against outside interference by a perimeter of claim rights. It correlates with the duty of those outside the natural family, including the state, to abstain from interfering with marital and parental rights and duties, absent an adjudication of divorce, neglect, or abuse.

. . .

Nothing is more fundamental to our legal edifice than the ancient liberty of the natural family. The new right of “same-sex marriage” will undermine the rational bases for many of our positive laws governing marriage. But it cannot undermine the fundamental liberty of the biological family, because it cannot eliminate the natural rights and duties in which that liberty is grounded. We should preserve the fundamental marriage right for the sake of our communities and the rule of law.

Full article can be accessed by visiting The Public Discourse.

If for No Other Reason, Protect the Family for the Sake of the Children

ThinkstockPhotos-466348257The media is awash with stories promoting transgenderism, touting celebrities like Bruce Jenner as being “heroic” and featuring transgender characters in several television series. But do reality shows actually depict the reality of what happens to children and families when a man denies his innate maleness or a woman denies her innate femaleness, and attempt to trick nature and “change” their gender to suit what they say is their “identity?” Denise Shick was raised by a “transgender” father, and the reality of her experience bears no resemblance to what is being pushed by Hollywood as heroic and healthy:

I am one of those children. I was raised by a transgender father.

I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father.

I was so hungry for my father; a transgender “mom” would not fit that need no matter how badly the adult wished it to.

My father experimented with my make-up and clothes, and by 7th grade I had decided that alcohol was the easiest method to numb my own pain. By the beginning of high school, I wondered if life was worth living.

Shick continues to relate her difficulties and experiences at the hands of her “transgender” ‘parent.’ She finishes by challenging, and begging America to do the right thing, if for no other reason, than for the sake of the children:

We prioritize adult’s sexual preferences ahead of what is best for their children.

As a culture we are very willing to address the emotional distress, isolation and other negative issues of people who come out as transgender adults. But we have not even begun to discuss the issues involved and the impact this has on their wives and children.

I’m begging America to wake up to what is being done for the sake of society and for children worldwide! This cultural celebration of transgenderism, for me as a daughter of a transgender father, is misguided and insensitive.

In our country’s most recent challenge regarding gay marriage, six adult children raised in same-sex or transgender households came forward to address the importance they placed on having both a mother and a father.

I wonder if anyone is listening to the voices of the adult children that should count and be heard.

As I know from firsthand experience, all children—including those being adopted—deserve a mom and a dad.

Source and quotes via The Daily Signal.

The Effects of Same-sex "Marriage" on Children's Mental Health

ThinkstockPhotos-471188516While social scientists are busy faking studies to show growing support for redefining marriage, or designing studies with a small number of participants who have an interest in the outcome of the study, it’s striking to note what they are not studying: the mental health impact on students of the cultural and media movement to proclaim all things gay to be good and healthy. An article at The Federalist reviews this phenomenon in the field of social work, a field that ordinarily would be expected to help assess mental health issues among their clientele:

Joseph Turner, who has a masters in social work, comments on the adverse effects the current political correctness can have on the mental health of people:

Mental health treatment requires close analysis of every aspect of a person’s life. We put together the puzzle pieces that make up a human being. We inquire how many hours someone slept last night and how often he or she woke up. We form theories around their precise level of eye contact or rate of speech. We ponder how closely they were held as infants. To declare that all claims to sexual orientation are above scrutiny is to analytically cripple ourselves. We’ve replaced the microscope with rose-colored glasses.

. . .

We live in a society where LGBT has saturated both political agenda and popular culture. Broken family structures, abuse, and relationship instability are tragically prevalent. In such a climate, reported same-sex attraction could occur for a lot of reasons. Some of them might be uncomfortable. To demand its blind, universal acceptance is both delusional and damaging to mental health. Dogmatic affirmation of all claims to sexual preference might well encourage behavior rooted in pathology.

He continues to suggest that the effects on children can be devastating, especially if it was the choice of the “parents” to switch from a heterosexual relationship to a same-sex relationship:

ThinkstockPhotos-477399995The mommies (or daddies, as the case may be) might do everything “right” to give their children a healthy, stable upbringing, yet the kids are still at risk to grow up troubled and unsure how to relate to the world around them… nobody among my colleagues acknowledged a problem. There was no questioning of the arrangement, no hint of concern. Everyone involved with the family was wholly positive about the mommies, even as they scratched their heads and wondered what was making the kids angry or depressed or confused.

It seems that the dangers of not only same-sex marriage, but also the same-sex mind control in popular culture is real and adversely affects the average person.

But the mental-health field is mostly professional, and thus subject to the academic and political authorities. It’s aimed at the practitioner rather than the pioneer. This leaves it unknowingly vulnerable to the powerful LGBT lobby. Even as we work to build people from the ground up, we blindly accept the ideas coming from the top down. If a professor or a textbook states that all sexual or gender orientation is above question, then so be it. The contradiction this presents to our greater body of psychological thinking goes unnoticed.

As any devoted parent will attest to, all parents want what is best for the child. While it can be hard for some to admit, the facts are there: children do best with a mom and a dad. And when they are told that gender is irrelevant, it is the children who suffer the devastating effects.

There is Always Hope for Marriage

Marriage has been in a free fall for several decades, but new research shows that the tide is ready to turn. Over at The Federalist, marriage scholar Dr. Brad Wilcox makes the case that despite falling marriage rates, the institution is poised to make a comeback:

Over the last half century, marriage has taken quite a beating. Since the 1960s, the rate of new marriages has fallen by more than 50 percent, and rates of divorce and single parenthood has more than doubled. The end result is that marriage is no longer the anchor for the adult life course or the family foundation for the bearing and rearing of children that it once was. Forecasts expect the marriage rate to hit an all-time low next year.

stk307181rknBut a close look at recent trends in marriage, non-marital childbearing, and single parenthood suggests that the nation’s retreat from marriage may be slowing… the marriage rate has not declined in recent years; the ratio of babies being born outside of wedlock has held steady at 41 percent since the Great Recession; and the share of children living in single-parent families has hovered around slightly more than one-quarter for more than a decade.

It was also suggested that marriage and having children, in that order, will be on the rise in the upcoming years:

Moreover, a growing number of college-educated millennials are now moving into the stage of life where they are poised to start families by marrying and having children—in that order—in the spirit of “high-investment parenting” (HIP) recently identified by Richard Reeves at Brookings. The movement of college-educated millennials into family life should keep these trends on a stable course. Taken together, the data suggest that the reports of marriage’s death have been exaggerated.

Dr. Wilcox also notes that studies continue to show that an intact marriage is not only about children, but is actually the best environment for children:

First, and foremost, marriage is about providing the best environment for our children. Virtually every week, I run across another study showing this. But what is striking about some of the new research is that it suggests boys, in particular, benefit from being raised in an intact, married home. For instance, in the last week I read fascinating new studies from Harvard University economist Raj Chetty and from Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan and their colleagues. These new studies indicate that family structure has especially powerful effects on boys. The new study from Chetty and his colleagues found that areas “with high crime rates and a large fraction of single parents generate particularly negative outcomes for boys relative to girls” when it comes to predicting their future income.

All of this is good news indeed, and a wonderful reiteration that marriage, as between a man and a woman, will always be a fundamental part of society. Science, logic, and history have demonstrated this, and nothing will ever change this truth.

Source via The Federalist.

Data Faked by Same-sex Marriage Researchers

Last year, the media was awash in stories reporting what was considered a major study that “proved” that once people had a conversation at their home with a same-sex canvasser, their minds were changed on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ should be accepted.

ThinkstockPhotos-467417087Further, the study claimed this was such a profound tactic, that follow up research showed that the change had lasted for an entire year, and that it had spread to others in the person’s family. This is reminiscent of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said (in her now infamous interview), claiming that the reason attitudes on same-sex ‘marriage’ had supposedly changed was that people were interacting with gay friends and neighbors who support it.

Now comes proof that the study was a fake, and it appears that the data was completely fabricated. The study’s lead author, a professor from Columbia, has formally retracted the study, blaming his co-author for the irregularities:

A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.

The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.

Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.

While this development is proving to be an embarrassment to those orchestrating the movement to redefine marriage, it reflects much deeper issues:

First, it shows how willing the media is to massively publicize any claim that shows people are changing their minds on same-sex ‘marriage’ because it feeds into the narrative that this is inevitable and they are on the right side of history.

Second, it shows how the underlying methodologies of many- if not most -studies supporting the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement are questionable – often using small convenience samples featuring people who have an interest in a study turning out a particular way.

This phenomenon was discussed in a ground-breaking report by Professor Loren Marks on the many studies used to support the claim that there are “no differences” for children raised by same-sex couples. Professor Marks looked at 59 of these studies and concluded that not one of them compared a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random representative sample of married parents and their children:

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.

People – including Supreme Court Justices – would do well to remember these fake and flawed studies when the media trots out the next claim purporting to show how beneficial it will be if we redefine the most important social institution civilization has ever known.

Source via Buzzfeed

Parents Shouldn't Provide What is Best for Their Children?

There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:

Parents Helping Their Children With Their Homework

President Obama used language of inequality to critique parents who send their kids to private schools and health clubs just this week.

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”

The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:

Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.

Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.

The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.

It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.

Full article available via The Federalist.