There is no need for complicated argument about whether the Regnerus study is scientifically valid. Regnerus made no valid comparison between his test group and his control group. As Dr. Nathaniel Frank said, writing in the L.A. Times: Regnerus: "fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant." Regnerus's UT colleague, Sociologist Debra Umberson, says this about his study:
"Regnerus' study is bad science.
Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison," (i.e., Regnerus made no valid sociological comparison between his test group and his control group). The American College of Pediatricians -- a tiny religious-right splinter group - filed -- less than one day after the Regnerus study was published -- an amicus brief in the Golinski-DOMA case in California; their brief relied very heavily on Regnerus's study, but mischaracterized Regnerus's study, by saying that it was done on young adult children of "same-sex couples." One month later, eight major professional associations, including the American Medical Association, filed what essentially is a "response" amicus brief to the ACP brief; they point out 1) the falsehoods about the Regnerus study in the ACP brief; and 2) the fact that the Regnerus study itself makes no sociologically valid comparisons between Regenrus's test and control groups.
If you think I'm "just an activist" -- why don't you go ask the American Medical Association, and all the other major professional associations who signed onto that brief, what led them to say that the Regnerus study is not valid as science? Furthermore, Regnerus is in multiple violations of the American Sociological Associations "Code of Ethics." These are determinations that can be made with objectivity, no matter one's personal opinions about gay people and/or gay rights. For example, the ASA Code of Ethics says that a sociologist may only become active in a new field of sociology, one that has not previously been his specialty, *after* taking steps to ensure that his work in the new area will be competent.
Regnerus was not a specialist in same-sex parenting -- and yet he paid Dr. Paul Amato to consult with him on the study design -- Amato himself is not an expert in same-sex parenting. So, both Regnerus and Amato violated the ASA's Code of Ethics. Two non-specialists, going ahead and working together on the same specialty for which they have no credentials. You add to that, apparent political collusion between Regnerus and his National Organization for Marriage-linked funders, and you have an evident scandal. NOM's Maggie Gallagher has been telling the public, for example, that Amato is a "significant outside scholar" who says that Regnerus's study is the best ever done on same-sex parenting. See what she did there? She falsely alleged that Amato, who was paid to consult on the study with her organization's leaders' money, is an "outside" scholar. The heck if he is! She also calls him "significant," attempting to mislead people into believing that Amato has credentials in the field of same-sex parenting, when he does not. Just how sleazy does an operation have to be, before you acknowledge that it is sleazy?
