Utah Makes Last-Ditch Effort To Drop Criticized Scholar Before Marriage Arguments

[DonViejo]

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will be considering the constitutionality of Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages on Thursday. Hours before the arguments, an acknowledgement from Utah’s lawyer about same-sex parenting critic.

posted on April 10, 2014 at 1:52am EDT

Chris Geidner
BuzzFeed Staff


DENVER — On the eve of arguments at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals over Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages, the state filed a last-minute notice with the court distancing the state from a professor whose work was recently lambasted by another federal judge.

In a letter marked on the docket as having been filed at 6:22 p.m. Wednesday, Gene Schaerr — the lawyer defending Utah’s ban for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert — told the court that he was sending the unusual document “in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus,” who the state relied on in its briefing at the appeals court for information about “the debate over whether same-sex parenting produces child outcomes that are comparable to man- woman parenting.”

After claiming that the Regnerus study — mentioned in two footnotes in the state’s brief — had “very limited relevance” to the state’s argument, Schaerr writes, “[T]he Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements.”

The move comes less than three weeks after a federal judge in Michigan — who heard testimony from Regnerus in the case challenging that state’s marriage ban — concluded of his authority as an expert, “The Court finds Regnerus’ testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” LGBT advocates and Regnerus’ own colleagues had similarly criticized the study.

more
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/utah-makes-last-ditch-effort-to-drop-criticized-scholar-befo

[Gothmog]

1. Utah is running away from the testimony of this idiot

This idiot is causing the State of Utah some heartburn http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/10/3425146/utah-regnerus/

On Thursday, the state of Utah will argue that the 10th Circuit should uphold its ban on same-sex couples marrying, but before entering the courtroom, state officials distanced themselves from one of their previous arguments. According to a letter submitted Wednesday, Utah will no longer cite Mark Regnerus’ study or its fraudulent claims that children raised by parents in same-sex relationships do not fare as well:

First, we wish to emphasize the very limited relevance to this case of the comparison addressed by Professor Regnerus. As the State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents. The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of heterosexual parents.

Second, on the limited issue addressed by the Regnerus study, the State wishes to be clear about what that study (in the State’s view) does and does not establish. The Regnerus study did not examine as its sole focus the outcomes of children raised in same-sex households but, because of sample limitations inherent in the field of study at this point, examined primarily children who acknowledged having a parent who had engaged in a same-sex relationship. Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements.

Just last month, a federal judge overturning Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage directly addressed the claims made by Regnerus after he spent a full day on the stand during the trial. Judge Bernard Friedman described his testimony as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” referring to Regnerus and other conservative scholars as representing “a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields.” It seems Utah hopes to avoid similar embarrassment in its case.

During the district court trial, Utah cited Regnerus to suggest that the debate on same-sex parenting was inconclusive and thus should not be trusted. Judge Robert Shelby dismissed that argument, making essentially the same point Utah concedes in this letter: promoting parenting by different-sex couples has no connection to banning same-sex couples from marrying.

In appeals briefs, Utah officials have indeed focused more on different-sex parenting. For example, they have argued that banning same-sex marriage promotes “diversity” in parenting and helps protect birth rates from declining. Still, they have also continued to argue that same-sex parenting would be a threat to children’s well-being.

By focusing so much on the state’s “powerful interest in parenting by heterosexuals,” Utah’s briefings have actually attempted to paint heterosexuality as superior instead of homosexuality as inferior — arguably, a distinction without a difference. Still, none of these arguments actually explain how preventing gay, lesbian, and bi people from marrying or accessing legal protections for their families actually has any impact on the commitment straight people make to their families.