Tweet
Yesterday, the Maryland legislature listened to testimony on a bill which would allow marriage equality in the state.
Of course, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council offered up testimony against the bill. A printed copy of his testimony is on FRC’s webpage.
Basically Sprigg said that marriage equality would harm children based on the following points:
Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
More children would grow up fatherless.
Birth rates would fall.
We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the drive the definition of marriage.
I won’t refute Sprigg’s testimony because he did it himself. Check out the endnotes – i.e. research he used to reach his points:
[1] Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14(3), 2004, p. 388.
[2] Bruce J. Ellis, John E. Bates, Kenneth A. Dodge, David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Gregory S. Pettit, Lianne Woodward, “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development Vol. 74, Issue 3, May 2003; abstract online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00569/abstract.
[3] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: BasicBooks, 1995), p. 45.
[4] Joyce A. Martin, Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, Stephanie J. Ventura, T. J. Mathews, Sharon Kirmeyer, and Michell J. K. Osteman, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, “Births: Final Data for 2007,” National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 58, No. 24, August, 2010, Table 11. Rankings calculated by the author.
Have you figure it out yet?
Hardly any of those studies have anything to do with marriage equality. Sprigg only uses one – the last study – the make the following claim:
There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Four of the first five states to permit same-sex “marriage” rank within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate and fertility rate
But based on how he distorts the other three, there should be a serious lack of credibility in terms of if he is being accurate here.
In other words, Sprigg claims that marriage equality will have a negative effect on children by citing studies having nothing to do with marriage equality.
Misrepresenting research is not a new thing for Sprigg. In February of last year, he made the claim that same-sex households are inferior to two-parent heterosexual households by using studies which have nothing to do with same-sex households.
And FRC continues to push his pamphlet, The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,which not only repeats discredited anti-lgbt accuracies but exposes a bit of trickery on Sprigg’s part. He cites only part of pro-lgbt information which talks about diseases and negative behaviors but omits the information which talks about how homophobia plays a part in these diseases and negative behaviors.
It’s almost depressing. As long as no one challenges Sprigg on his indiscretions, he will continue to be pushed as an “expert” and will continue to give misleading testimony at legislative hearings like he did yesterday in Maryland.
5 Comments
You don’t even have to do a study about that. All that requires is thinking for a few minutes. How the fuck could a gay couple getting married possibly affected the birth rate? The whole idea is just absurd
“Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
More children would grow up fatherless.
Birth rates would fall.
We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the drive the definition of marriage.”
Whatever he’s been smoking, it should probably be checked out by the DEA.
None of those points have anything to do with marriage equality. And his last point is laughable — how many people get married to serve the interests of society or the needs of children? Can I have a show of hands?
Of course he gave false testimony, his lips were moving.
I bet though that he was all up in arms about Bill Clinton lying to Congress. He may be, and probably is, a hypocrite.
All you have to do is see the name of the group he represents. That right there will tell you that why he has to say will be nothing but lies, perversion of the truth, and deception.
What gets me is that whenever the religious reicht robots start spewing that Islam allows their followers to lie in order to obtain power, they *never* get the fact that the American Taliban do the *same thing*!
Gee, ain’t hypocrisy FUN?
Interesting that he cites “the birth rate will fall” as one of the problems. Of course it’s bullshit like all his other claims, but aside from that I’m wondering who in the vast collection of right wingnuts is claiming that we should worry about this. Is it just this shithead? I think of this as something that the Catholic Church doesn’t like, because of their opposition to contraception, and the super-xenophobic racist types want “real” Americans to have more babies because they want more white people, but is this an issue among ultra-conservatives in general? Personally, I think of declining birth rates as a positive thing — it’s good for women, and good for the Earth.