I never did like the smell of gay philosopher John Corvino collaborating with NOM’s Maggie Gallagher on a book, Debating Same-Sex Marriage, and book promotions during a presidential election year.
Because Corvino is beholden to the publisher to help with book promotions, he can go only so far in his criticisms of Gallagher and NOM.
Would the head of the NAACP co-author a book “debating” David Duke the white supremacist?
One does not debate such monsters, because accepting to debate them gives their monstrous bigotry an unwarranted imprimatur of respectability.
Certain attitudes, statements and actions just do cross over a line; Gallagher has said she is not “willing” to live in a country that gives anti-discrimination protections to gay people, she has knowingly sought to perpetuate conditions that increase youth suicide levels, her organization sponsors rallies where its speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death,” and one of its leaders, William Duncan, held a Liberty University symposium sessions titled “Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens; Who Deserves Protected Class Status?”
A recent hoax perpetrated thanks to NOM-connected funding by the University of Texas’s religious right-wing sociologist Mark Regnerus “found” that homosexual parents are dangerous to children.
NOM has been running with sadistic joy, spreading the “findings” of the Regnerus hoax its co-founder helped finance, exacerbating what the Southern Poverty Law Center long has noted as NOM’s propensity to tell known negative falsehoods about gay people.
Because Corvino and Gallagher were already in a business collaboration through their co-authored book with their publisher, and have long been seen engaging in inane banter with each other, as though knowingly perpetuating conditions that exacerbate youth suicide qualified somebody as a delightful tea party guest, when the Regnerus excrement hit the fan, Corvino and Gallagher brought their act to the pages of the right-wing National Review.
Corvino had stated that for the purposes of Regnerus’s study, Ted Haggard would have been classified as a gay father. Gallagher told him he was wrong about that. He responded by doubling down to insist that she was in error about his being wrong about the Haggard family vis-a-vis Regnerus’s study. It was all more fun than a barrel of anti-gay bigots.
The trouble is that Corvino is totally wrong. The Regnerus Survey Instrument first asked respondents their ages, to make sure that they were in the right age range, and then asked them if they lived together with their biological mother and father until they were 18. If they answered “Yes,” they got skipped ahead in the survey, and never asked whether one of their parents had ever had a “same sex romantic relationship.” A young adult child of the Haggard union would truthfully answer that their biological mother and father had them under a same roof until they were 18. That Haggard family survivor would then not be asked whether Ted, the gay-bashing, meth-abusing, gay hustler-hiring hypocrite, had ever had a “same-sex romantic relationship.” Their parent Ted Haggard would not get classified as “gay.”
Yet there is John Corvino, gay rights champion and NOM/Gallagher collaborator, insisting that a Ted Haggard would have been classified as a gay father in Regnerus’s study, even though that is verifiably false.
With Gallagher leading the promotions of the study, and Corvino playing dumb-guy sidekick to her, he helps to cast her promotions of Regnerus is a “smart” light; Corvino is making Gallagher look good; pathetic for him as that might be.
Regnerus’s University of Texas is investing a lot of time and money into promoting the NOM-related-funded Regnerus hoax. NOM leaders evidently handpicked, and certainly approved of the religious right-wing Regnerus of the University of Texas carrying out their study on same-sex parenting, even though Regnerus has no credentials in that field. And what an extraordinary coincidence it is, that John Corvino earned his Ph.D. from that very same University of Texas, Austin.
Is it really just coincidence, that 1) the University of Texas, Austin is using its economic resources to promote the NOM-Witherspoon-funded Regnerus-study; that 2) NOM’s Maggie Gallagher has a business collaboration with John Corvino, from which they both harvest advantages; that; 3) both Regnerus and Corvino have a connection with the University of Texas, Austin, and that; 4) all of those varied NOM-related connections to UT — from which UT is profiting — are occurring simultaneously in an election year?
Is the appearance that 1) NOM; 2) Maggie Gallagher; 3) the UT-and-NOM-connected John Corvino, and; 4) the UT-and-NOM-connected Mark Regnerus all got in on action centering on 5) the University of Texas, Austin in an election year only an appearance, or did some sort of planning go into this?
After all, Mark Regnerus had no prior experience in the field of same-sex parenting, and any number of appropriately-credentialed sociologists might have been called on to carry out a study on same-sex parenting instead. How very curious that a not-appropriately-credentialed, religious arch-social-regressive scholar at a university system overseen by religious right Regents appointed by the religious right Governor Rick Perry — who has endorsed Mitt Romney, who has signed the anti-gay-rights NOM pledge — should have been NOM-Witherspoon’s choice to carry out a study on same-sex parenting.
Let us not forget that the 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform says that homosexuality tears at the fabric of society. And let us not ignore that Corvino’s public remarks on Regnerus have mainly involved his National Review back-and-forth with Gallagher, consistent with a book promotions plan, and that Corvino did not sign the letter from over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s condemning the study.
As a “public intellectual” with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas, Austin, Corvino is in a position to demand that the school do the right thing and promptly denounce the NOM-Regnerus hoax as constituting sociological malpractice, because the “study” makes no valid sociological comparison between heterosexual and homosexual parents.
Corvino should be standing up and demanding that those Rick Perry-appointed Regents of the University of Texas respect academic integrity, distance themselves from the NOM-Regnerus hoax, and apologize to the nation’s gay community.
Corinvo’s reputation, after all, is tied at least somewhat to the university’s. If the school lowers its academic standards, the perceived worth of his doctorate declines.
Yet, as somebody tied to NOM’s Maggie Gallagher in the commercial enterprise that is their co-authored book, Corvino can be expected to remain more devoted to the NOM-linked commercial enterprise than to the well-being of the LGBT community nationwide.
New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 25 comments }
I never thought about it that way.
Also I never caught that if you said you lived with both of your parents for 18 years you were never asked, "Did either one of your parents have a same sex realtionship"
So it goes like this
Did you live with your parents 18 years?
Yes I did,
You are done, now answer questions about how happy you are.
Did you live with your parents 18 years
No
You didn't? Oh did either one of your parents ever have a same sex romance?
Thus 100% guaranteeing that that everyone who said their parents had a same sex relationship ALSO had lived in and out between A parent and Both parents or maybe a grandmother.
I guess Maggie answered the Ted Haggard question right and Corvino answered it wrong. However NO DOUBT Maggie had an advance copied of the report and had poured over it hoping beyond hope that THIS would be the "killer app" to scientifically prove that gay parents are a harm to children.
You have to really go and read the full questionnaire and understand the sequencing of the questions to discern this. Obviously Maggie had the time to do that (because I bet she got an advance copy) and Corvino had not gone and looked up the questionnaire. I kind of see why he didn't bother, since the study did NOT prove that gays make bad parents. Whereas Maggie was hunting and hunting and hunting trying to find it after being told the study proved nothing Corvino would not have had the same incentive to dive into the details.
It is odd how the University of Texas Austin is such a nucleus isn't it?
Now that I think about it, and I had not thought about it before, it IS odd for a man who is gay to co-author a book with Maggie Gallagher.
Readers wishing to see the questions Regnerus asked survey respondents may view the "Survey Instrument" here: http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-Sur…
Readers are advised that one "James Peron" appears on the Facebook "Friends" list of John Corvino: http://www.facebook.com/james.peron.9
Readers are reminded that Mr. Corvino's collaboration with NOM's Maggie Gallagher and the Oxford University Press involves gain for Mr. Corvino, including publishing industry career building steps.
Edit Delete
Scott Rose does a great service when he challenges the absurd methodology of the Regnerus study and criticizes the collusion of John Corvino with Maggie Gallagher. But he himself becomes absurd when he finds it ominous that Corvino has a Ph.D. from the University of Texas and thinks that that means he must somehow be complicit with NOM. That is such bullshit and it weakens his criticism. As Rose knows, many sociologists from the University of Texas have criticized the Regnerus study. And if he knew anything about academia, he would know that members of the philosophy department at Texas have nothing to do with members of the sociology department, to say nothing of the fact that Corvino must have gotten his Ph.D. 25 years ago. This kind of conspiracy theory nonsense is more worthy of the Teaparty than of a serious critique of the Regnerus study. Please don't sacrifice your credibility by publishing nonsense. The issue is too important to give people good reason to dismiss the critique.
You are ruining your credibility. In the first place, I have made no personal attacks on you. I have said some of your charges are absurd. You must be paranoid. There are thousands of PhDs produced by the University of Texas. Do you think they are all in cahoots with NOM and Regnerus? You obviously have no idea of how academia works. The problem is that your excellent points about the study is getting lost because of your paranoid approach. Please use some common sense, otherwise you will just be dismissed as a crazy person. You are not helping things by making scattershot charges. God knows, NOM is thoroughly corrupt and Regerus's study is a disgrace. But your attacks are becoming preposterous: having a PhD from the University of Texas does not make Corvino in any way implicated in the Regnerus study.
Readers interested in additional information about the University of Texas, Austin's behavior in the Regnerus matter should read:
U. Of Texas Stonewalling On Regnerus Inquiry http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/u-of-texas-s…
Only fundamentalist see debating as useless. And the fundamentalist mind set is just as much a part of the gay community as the Christian community.
Exactly how do you think the majority of people who have switched sides on this issue have done so? Do you think it was screaming at them, or talking to them? People change minds because of debate. And, anyone who thinks the debate is with Maggie has it all wrong. She is merely a stand-in for the rest of the public. Let her be trounced in debate after debate and minds change. And all the evidence shows they are changing in just one direction. You can throw that aside and feel holier-than-thou, if you want. But it is relatively useless in doing what needs to be done—change minds.
You are misstating the evidence. While people who know gay people are MORE likely to be supportive of equality of rights that doesn't mean they didn't debate the issues, or that others, who don't gay people on a personal level, haven't come to support gay rights. In fact, the surveys that show these people are MORE likely to be supportive also show that people who don't know anyone personally who is gay can also be supportive.
Under your fundamentalist moralism then no one should ever speak to anyone else if they feel the other person is wrong morally. Well, given that many people think that most issues are issues of morality, at one level or another, yours would be a pretty isolated world with lots of angry people glaring at one another and refusing to speak. And, if I think being open to discussion and debate is a morally good thing, does that mean, by your standard, that I should stop speaking to you?
Paranoid and fundamentalist, they often go together. What I said was that debate is useful. You morally damn talking to others because the others are evil if they don't already agree. I don't need to email Corvino and demand he do anything. That is also the sort of rot fundamentalist thinking does — it demands that not only must every agree with their morality, but their course of action as well. Corvino's debate do good. You, on the other hand, want to preach to the choir. It may make you feel good, but when it comes to actually shifting views in the wider culture, it is pretty damn useless.
PS: you turned a one sentence comment defending debate into an extended discussion. Apparently to disagree with you makes one an "attack troll." I'm sorry, but how old are you?
Readers are reminded that GLAAD's Media Accountability Project reports the facts below about NOM's Maggie Gallagher: http://www.glaad.org/cap/maggie-gallagher
Facts
UPDATE – Internal memos obtained by the Human Rights Campaign reveal that Gallagher's organization, the National Organization for Marriage, was actively attempting to—in its own words—"drive a wedge between gays and blacks" and "provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing (black) spokesmen and women as bigots." A 2008–2009 Board Update also revealed that one of NOM's goals was "fanning the hostility" (p.12) between the LGBT community and the black community.
- Referred to being gay as “a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species.”
- Compared winning the fight to ban marriage for gay couples with the fall of communism and believes that if it is made legal, it will mean “losing American civilization.”
- Believes polygamy is better than marriage equality: “At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children.”
- Said “I oppose extending anti-discrimination laws to gays.”
- Sees both gay couples and their supporters as "committing several kinds of very serious sins."
- Says gay people see marriage as just "a symbol"; claims the fight is "not about marriage" (38:10–38:35)
Readers are advised that one "James Peron" appears on the Facebook "Friends" list of John Corvino: http://www.facebook.com/james.peron.9
Readers are reminded that Mr. Corvino's collaboration with NOM's Maggie Gallagher and the Oxford University Press involves gain for Mr. Corvino, including publishing industry career building steps.
Regardless of where Corvino's doctorate is from — which makes no difference at all in the greater scheme of things — I've never given him much credibility. As far as I've ever seen, he's firmly in the "we should wait for our rights until everyone else is comfortable with it" camp, which is to say, a dead weight in the same category as GOProud.
The reason it makes a difference that Corvino's Ph.D. is from the University of Texas, is that unlike people who have no affiliation with the school, Corvino can stand up and say "I will not remain silent while the university where I earned my Ph.D. allows a sham study to be presented as authentic to the public."
This article makes a serious allegation about John Corvino's scholarly integrity. Prof. Corvino purports to consider the Regnerus study to be seriously flawed – http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/104017/yes-gay-pare… . In this article, Mr Rose suggests that Prof. Corvino made deliberately incorrect criticisms of Regnerus in order to try to prop up the study by discrediting the study's critics. Intentional misrepresentation of one's own professional opinion is about as grave a charge as can be made about an academic's conduct.
For such a serious allegation, there should be significant evidence. I see no significant evidence here.
No evidence is presented here to undermine the "good faith error" explanation of Prof. Corvino's conduct. He gave incorrect information about the Regnerus paper. It seems perfectly plausible that Prof. Corvino was attempting to articulate the valid criticisms of Regnerus made by many, including Mr Rose, but that Prof. Corvino made errors when he attempted to explain these problems with Regnerus. Surely if Prof. Corvino had wanted to prop up Regnerus, there would be better ways of doing it. He could have repeated Regnerus's own "defence" of his paper. Why go to the trouble of articulating a critique, even a mistaken one?
The only evidence presented in support of the "conspiracy" explanation is that a) there is a business association between Prof. Corvino and Maggie Gallagher and b) Prof. Corvino got his doctorate from Univ. of Texas, which is also Regnerus's institution.
But what does the relationship between Prof. Corvino and NOM consist of? John Corvino has become well known for travelling to conservative venues to argue for marriage equality, often against Maggie Gallagher. They have now transferred this argument into a book. If Prof. Corvino is secretly "in cahoots" with NOM to discredit same-sex parents or marriage equality, then he's doing a terrible job of it. Many in the political centre ground find Prof. Corvino's arguments persuasive, and NOM loses support because of his work. If he is a NOM plant, they should fire him immediately, because the only side he is helping is the side of equality.
Perhaps Mr Rose believes that Prof. Corvino is not a consistent opponent of equality, but that he is working with NOM to keep the Regnerus paper alive, either out of allegiance to University of Texas or out of a desire to prolong his business relationship with Maggie Gallagher.
The "alumnus" argument is absurd. Mr Rose is right that Regnerus's paper brings University of Texas into disrepute. Regnerus's paper has been widely attacked by people who (unlike Corvino) have relevant qualifications. Anyone concerned about maintaining the value of their alma mater's qualifications would want the paper and its author rejected by University of Texas as quickly as possible, not to drag out the public debate, and if Prof. Corvino is clever enough to orchestrate a convoluted plot to prop up the Regnerus paper, then he's certainly clever enough to realise that.
The only other motivation proposed by this piece is the business relationship between John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher. But I do not see how venality could motivate Prof. Corvino to mislead his readers over Regnerus. The Corvino-Gallagher OUP book is selling very well although it is not about parenting, and its success seems unconnected to the Regnerus paper; it's hard to see how strengthening the paper helps the book. Perhaps OUP is even now considering a partner volume addressing same-sex parenting, but if so, I doubt that the authors will be either Maggie Gallagher or John Corvino. And if Mr Rose is suggesting that keeping Regnerus alive will prolong the marriage equality fight and so procure more purchasers for the Corvino-Gallagher book, then he is both more optimistic about the political process and more pessimistic about the courts than I: it seems to me that the courts have made short work of bogus arguments in the past and will do so again with Regnerus; on the other hand, the public seems to have the stomach to keep denying us our rights for a few more years, Regnerus or no.
The real allegation here seems to be guilt by association. Maggie Gallagher hates us; John Corvino maintains a civil relationship with her; therefore he is a traitor and cannot be trusted. Perhaps this is what your "culture war" looks like, but it isn't mine. This odious argument is not worthy of Mr Rose or Mr Badash.
Publishing such an attack on Prof. Corvino's integrity with so little evidence is unethical, and undermines the credibility of the New Civil Rights Movement blog. I hope that Mr Rose and Mr Badash will reconsider this piece and either withdraw the allegation of collusion with NOM over Regnerus, or present some evidence for the allegation.
Until then, after over a year reading every single item on NCRM, I cannot in good conscience continue to read or support this blog. Farewell, and thank you for your hard work for the cause.
I always dislike having to respond to an anonymous commenter. "Atlanta20" — this could be John Corvino's mother. In the midst of all of the high-dudgeon blah-blah-blah, "Atlanta20" has said that there is "no connection" between Regnerus's anti-gay-parenting hoax, and NOM's anti-gay-marriage politicking. That shows everybody how much "atalanta20" understands about NOM. Readers should go scroll through posts and comments under posts at http://www.NOMBLog.com, to understand that NOM's supporters are calling the Regnerus study "true science," saying that it "proves" that all homosexuals are pedophiles — that kind of thing. John Corvino did not apparently help gay rights causes one little mosquitoes' poop in North Carolina when his friend Maggie Gallagher was hate-mongering against gays there and the anti-gay state constitutional amendment passed. "atalanta20" evidently has not read the NOM pledge signed by Romney, and does not think that the country could have a "George W. Bush" re-run with Republicans stealing an election. The NOM pledge calls for Romney to eliminate marriage equality throughout the country, and for him to appoint 1) attorneys general; 2) federal judges; and 3) Supreme Court judges, all of whom are resolutely against gay rights. Romney-appointed Supreme Court judges certainly would block gay rights for at least one generation and perhaps a lot longer. By contrast, here is what I actually say Corvino should do: Stand up to the Regents of the University of Texas, and demand that they acknowledge that the Regnerus study does not make a sociologically valid comparison between straight and gay parents. If, as"atalanta 20" says, Corvino's public mistakes, errors of fact about the Regnerus study in his exchanges with NOM's Maggie Gallagher are only "good faith errors," then they demonstrate exactly why Corvino should be standing up to UT Regents and not running around doing perhaps accidental damage to the cause. If Corvino made a similar "good faith error" as a corporate attorney, he would be fired. Instead, he is screwing up for the entire LGBT community against one of the LGBT community's most implacable foes, yet "atalanta20" sees no problem, except for with the person telling Corvino to stand up to the school from which he has his Ph.D., to tell it that a rigged invalid study is not acceptable.
Readers should be aware that the anonymous commenter "atalanta20" could be a figure such as Mr. Corvino's mother. Readers also should be aware that for NOM's purposes, the Regnerus anti-gay hit job and anti-gay-rights politicking are not "separate;" they go hand in hand. A perusal of the NOM blog these days suffices to understand that Corvino's friend NOM's Maggie Gallagher is encouraging NOM followers to believe that the Regnerus study "proves" that all homosexuals are pedophiles. This fraudulent hate-mongering against gays is intended to make voters vote against gay-rights measures and for Republicans in November. Romney has signed the NOM pledge, which not only would have him banning same-sex marriage nationwide, but also installing Supreme Court judges resolutely against gay rights, impacting gay-rights matters for generations. Moreover, whether Corvino's errors of fact in arguing with his business partner NOM's Maggie Gallagher are "good faith errors" or not, he has made them, and that is another bit of evidence of why he should not be in a business collaboration with NOM's Maggie Gallagher. Were Corvino a corporate attorney handling a lawsuit, and were he to make such a (stupid) "good faith error," he would be out of a job. The bottom line here is that Corvino should be telling UT: "I will not remain silent while the university where I earned my Ph.D. allows a sham study to be presented as authentic to the public." Why isn't Corvino doing that?
Normally I don't comment on bizarre conspiracy theories about me, but let me at least set the record straight: http://igfculturewatch.com/2012/07/10/haggard-is-…
Readers of this blog should notice that Mr. Corvino's link above leads to his blog post in which he admits that my criticism of his public statements about the Regnerus study were accurate criticisms, but he doesn't at all address the more important question of why he has not taken a public stand demanding that UT disassociate itself from the Regnerus study. He calls my criticism of him a "bizarre conspiracy theory" in line with the inappropriate comments on my article made by persons on Corvino's Facebook friends list, but he does not at all address my criticism of his co-authoring a book with NOM's Maggie Gallagher and thereby being in a business deal with her hat requires him to collaborate with her on book promotions. There is no "conspiracy theory" to the fact of NOM's Gallagher and Corvino being in a business deal together with their publisher; it's something he never should have done, and which I did not invent as a "conspiracy theory." Corvino is helping to enrich a person whose organization sponsors rallies where its speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are "worthy to death." Here he is now, snidely reducing my legitimate criticisms of him to "bizarre conspiracy theories" and then correcting his error on his blog without mentioning that I caught his glaring mistake. Corvino didn't even have the decency the link to this blog post, from which he learned that he had to correct his mistake. And, the correction doesn't belong on that blog; it belongs under the original National Review articles involving his mistakes. Isn't that what publications interested in correcting errors of fact do — publish corrections? Corvino's by-line is on those National Review articles; he can advise the editors that update corrections are needed.
Mr Corvino better reconsider his 'debating' the Gallagher sideshow if he wants to retain any shred of his reputation intact. Right now he is entirely an enabler of a propagandist whose career is based on stripping Mr. Corvino of his civil rights. He would never have agreed to do this ignorant book unless… ! Oh no, look! He got a two book deal. He's NOM's tame fag!
It's disgusting that the OUP would publish Gallagher. She belongs at Regnery. Now it seems so does Corvino. I called and emailed OUP USA to try to warn them but met with indifference. Same goes for Corvino. A provincial opportunist.
Hello: Please consider signing and sharing this petition. The petition demands that the Editorial Board of the journal Social Science Research retract the notorious, invalid, defamatory, anti-gay Regnerus gay-parenting “study.” According to the journal’s own Peer Review Policy, it takes MONTHS for the editor to locate experts to carry out peer review of submissions on esoteric topics like gay parenting. But, SSR’s editor James Wright did NOT get topic experts, the BIGOTS he had do the peer review had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, and Regnerus’s submission was accepted for publication in only 5 ½ weeks, LESS TIME than the journal usually spends just to LOCATE expert peer reviewers. Be sure to read the full petition text inside the petition at this link: http://tinyurl.com/8q7ync4
n January 2002, Aozora Records re-released iMegaphone in Japan, replacing the deleted 1998 Japanese edition. The album comes packaged in a square hard cardboard case, with one side containing the album booklet, and one side containing the CD,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. Thanks for the code…hard to ?And when needed..very nice indeed and keep up the good work
Readers are advised that one "James Peron" appears on the Facebook "Friends" list of John Corvino: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/james.peron.9” target=”_blank”>http://www.facebook.com/james.peron.9
Readers are reminded that Mr. Corvino's collaboration with NOM's Maggie Gallagher and the Oxford University Press involves gain for Mr. Corvino, including publishing industry career building steps.
Comments on this entry are closed.