Comments about ‘Mormon Media Observer: Coverage of family structure study spotty’

Perhaps the reason that the so-called "mainstream media" were reluctant to promote the study is that they recognized it as flawed science. Would you expect the AP to report on the latest paper published by the Creation Science Research Institute? Granted, the Regnerus paper appeared in a legitimate journal, but doubts to its validity and criticisms abound. Over 200 academic researchers have written an open letter to Social Science Research criticizing the piece. There are allegations that peer review was rushed and that the peer reviewers included participants in the study (conflict of interest). The analysis had flaws equal to convenience sampling-- lumping groups of families together in ways that generated greater negative outcomes and made it difficult to tease out the underlying causes of the outcomes.

It is telling that the media that chose to carry the story are agenda-driven outlets with a particular (conservative, anti-gay marriage) point of view. It appears they were eager to run with a study that supported their preconceptions regardless of whether it had scientific merit. Perhaps, like CNN reporting the Supreme Court Obamacare decision, they should have waited a bit and been more circumspect rather than rushing to publication.

If Desert News's coverage of Regnerus was truly professional, then why has Deseret never disclosed that a member of its editorial board, Robert George, also is a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute and a Board member of the Bradley Foundation? Witherspoon gave Regernus a $55,000 "planning grant" before getting him full study funding; and all reputable sociologists say that Regnerus worked with an invalid sample. He rigged his study to arrive at Robert George's desired outcome for it, by cherry-picking his control groups, and not even surveying an adequate sample of young adults raised by gay parents. The L.A. Times said:"But because his sample is mostly made up of fractured families, he fails the most basic equirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant." And gay parents raising children is not an "experiment." Look at major league baseball player Joe Valentine, raised since birth by a same-sex couple.

Williams' analysis of media coverage drifts tangentially off topic in the latter third with personal speculation and opining on marriage policy and science. His concern about Type I/Type II errors (i.e. is it better to accept a false premise or to reject a true one) is well taken, but deserves some other perspectives. I concur that marriage is "fundamentally and first about stability for children." But consider that marriage policy allows many forms of suboptimal families. Pretty much everybody agrees that two parents are better for children's outcomes than one, yet the law allows for single parenthood-- either through divorce or out-of-wedlock births. Two-parent family structures may be the optimal for children, but clearly the law is satisfied with "adequate" (or even "minimally capable") instead of "ideal." Some will dismiss the analogy between race and sexual orientation, but would Williams have said to go slow after the Loving decision because there weren't enough studies of mixed race families? Of course not. Given that gay couples have to consciously choose to have have kids (no accidents!), it's reasonable to assume that most are emotionally and financially prepared and would make capable parents.

maybe because my 7th grader seems to know more about research methods then the people that conducted this "study."
It is about time the media learned not to report garbage.

If the Federal government were proposing to interfere with the natural reproduction processes for spotted owls, bald eagles, or chinook salmon, the law requires that all potential impacts of the intervention be analyzed and publicly discussed before the intervention was initiated. Because these species are protected as threatened, the burden would be on the government to prove in court that there would be no adverse impact on each species before the program could be allowed to proceed.
Yet here we are embarking on a program that alters the natural reproductive process for human beings, and the advocates assert that there must be a legal presumption that there is no adverse effect on children raised in this non-traditional environment. It is the exact opposite of the Precautionary Principle that the same liberals advocate for any government action affecting the natural environment. They are willing to embark on, not an experiment, but a wholesale government program, without any certainty about the long term effects on children. Our society is more in favor of protecting fish and birds than it is human beings.

@coltakashi
A few problems with your argument. first you got the logic a little backwards, sorry, but when it comes to individual freedoms the burden is on the government to show why they should not be allowed not on those that want to those freedoms protected. secondly, the ability to and willingness to reproduce has never been a requirement for marriage and with modern technology it is not a concern anyway. Thirdly we do have a large body f credible research that shows there are no adverse affects to children being raised by same sex couples. Now having said, that if you can produce some credible research that everyone else seems to have missed over the past 20 years of this debate that actually shows some type of significant harm to society then by all means you need to share it with NOm and other organizations that are trying to fight against gay marriage because right now they have nothing.