“Sprigg never explains the mystical effect that same-sex marriage has on the birth rate of opposite sex couples as he claims.”

It seems that Mr. Sprigg is very, very upset with United States District Court Judge Michael J. McShane who ruled for equality in Oregon. Sprigg won’t say it but McShane’s greatest crime is J.W.G. or judging while gay. Worse yet, Judge McShane and his partner, Gregory Ford, have a son. Oh my. 

Peter Sprigg, a Baptist minister, is somehow
Family Research Council’s point man on all things gay. Mr. Sprigg is
arguably one of the most misinformed and misinforming human beings in
conservative Christendom. He is one of the reasons that FRC is a
designated anti-gay hate group.

Let’s explore some of the things that Sprigg gets wrong:

In the former category (blatantly false) is virtually everything McShane says about the research on children raised by homosexual parents, including his declaration that “children fare the same whether raised by opposite-gender or same-gender couples.”

On the issue of homosexual parenting, however, McShane has a body of methodologically flawed and biased research that tends to support his view, as well as a collection of ideologically-driven policy statements by large professional organizations.

Neither Mr. Sprigg nor Judge McShane are sociologists. What most rational people do when making an important decision is to rely on the testimony and evidence provided by experts in the field under review. All of the research confirms Judge McShane’s view. I’ll remind readers that Mark Regnerus’ hack job did not research children raised by gay couples. In Michigan, Judge Friedman put it this way:

The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not
worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial
demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest
of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary
data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate
about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which
‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be
vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the
funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the
Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a
certain result, and Regnerus obliged.

Sprigg probably blames “that Jew” but knows better than to say it. If kids raised by gay couples fare so poorly then surely there is respectable research to demonstrate that fact. Apparently there is not. Furthermore, the meme of “ideologically-driven policy statements by large professional organizations” is really getting tedious. It’s intellectually dishonest bunk proffered by people who don’t like the opinions of the scientific establishment. Keep in mind that these are the same people who want to teach children that the earth is 6,000 years old — give or take a decade or two. Then there is this:

… McShane declared:

“Opposite-sex couples will continue to
choose to have children responsibly or not, and those considerations are
not impacted in any way by whether same-gender couples are allowed
to marry.”

Quoting another judge on the next page, McShane added:

“Permitting same-sex couples to marry will
not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce,
cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

To both of these statements, my response is: “How can you possibly know?”

Common sense?

Of course Sprigg never does quite explain how allowing same-sex couples to marry will affect opposite sex couples. He has more than a decade of demographics from Massachusetts to work with (although he dedicates considerable verbiage to confusing correlation with causation). For example, Sprigg notes that “All of the bottom 6 states in birth rate have same-sex “marriage” (SSM).”

Sprigg never explains the mystical effect that same-sex marriage has on the birth rate of opposite sex couples as he claims. Nor for that matter does Sprigg explain how that could occur in such a short period of time. Could it possibly be that more progressive states tend to have better educated  citizens who marry later in life and have fewer children? I don’t know. I’m not a sociologist either. However these are the same folks who blame same-sex marriage for hurricanes. God is pissed.

Nevertheless, while he is at it, Sprigg does have some predictions of his own about the effect of marriage equality. According to him:

My predictions directly contradicted those made by Judge McShane, and included these points:

  • Fewer people would marry
  • Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime
  • Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father
  • More children would grow up fatherless; and
  • Birth rates would fall.

As they say, you couldn’t make this shit up if you tried!

Enhanced by Zemanta

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.