MichgTrialTranscriptsDay 6 Part 1 of 3 Regnerus

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER, ET. AL.
, Plaintiffs, -vRICHARD SNYDER, ET. AL., Defendants. ______________________________/ VOLUME 6 - AM SESSION Case Number: 12-10285
BENCH TRIAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 100 U. S. Courthouse & Federal Building 231 West Lafayette Boulevard West Detroit, Michigan 48226 TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: Vickie L. Henry, Esq. Leslie Cooper, Esq. Carole M. Stanyar, Esq. Dana M. Nessel, Esq. Kenneth Mogill, Esq. Robert Sedler, Esq. Tonya C. Jeter, Esq. Kristin M. Heyse, Esq. Joseph E. Potchen, Esq. Beth M. Rivers, Esq. Andrea J. Johnson, Esq. Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
For the Defendants: Richard Snyder, Bill Schuette, Lisa Brown
To Obtain Certified Transcript, Contact: JOAN L. MORGAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 734 812-2672
2 I N D E X
3 I N D E X
STATE DEFENDANTS CASE Preliminary Matters WITNESS: MARK REGNERUS, Ph.D. Cross-Examination by Ms. Cooper 10 4 PAGE:
S RECEIVED:
None.
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Detroit, Michigan Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 (At or about 9:00 a.m.) -- --- -THE COURT: You may be seated. Just before our morning break, well talk a little bit about scheduling so we have some idea. Doctor -- is he here? MS. HEYSE: Plaintiffs have some preliminary matters, your Honor. What do you have? MS. NESSEL: Good morning your Honor. When we recessed yesterday I brought to the Courts attention the fact that Ms. Heyse had indicated to me that she intended to present a power point presentation for Joseph Price who is scheduled to be the witness after Dr. Regnerus today. THE COURT: Right. MS. NESSEL: I had asked for the presentation as
quickly as possible. Despite the fact that we sent a couple emails requesting it following court, I did not receive an email with the presentation until like 10:28 last night. The presentation involves many complex charts and graphs that Ive never seen before. And the content of this just from my quick review of it, it appears to include some
12-10285
DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor. THE COURT: What does the State have to say? MS. HEYSE: Good morning, your Honor. then, yes. So those are my requests to the Court, your case. MS. NESSEL: I know. THE COURT: Wait a minute. MS. NESSEL: I havent had an opportunity to -THE COURT: Ten thirty, youre suppose to take your No-Doze. MS. NESSEL: I know. If it was over the counter, content that was never in Dr. Prices expert report. So I am requesting of the Court one of a number of remedies:
Either that the Court strike the power point and not permit that to be used or that Dr. Price instead of testifying after Dr. Regnerus which I think everybody assumes will be today that he not testify until tomorrow which would give me an opportunity to review all this matter. Or in the alternative give an extensive, a lengthy, lengthy recess following Dr. Regnerus testimony so that I have an opportunity to review all this because this is a lot of material and Ive never seen it before. Obviously at 10:30 at night, you know, I was going to bed. THE COURT: Going to bed. This is an important
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our staff. THE COURT: I did. MS. HEYSE: They were able to come to court. THE COURT: Please do. Im happy to address this but before I do I just want to take a brief moment. Your Honor had asked me to introduce members of
MS. HEYSE: I do want to point out that one of our newest Assistant Attorney General is Scott Shimkus who is in the courtroom here today. THE COURT: Nice to see you. MS. HEYSE: He has been a tremendous help to the team in preparing for the case so I did want to acknowledge him. THE COURT: Good to have you. Were trying to get everybody acknowledged. MS. HEYSE: Thank you, so much for that opportunity, your Honor. And, again, Im happy to address Ms. Nessels requests. She is absolutely right that we were unable to get her the power point until later in the evening yesterday. I dont dispute that. The fact of the matter is that we left here, we went to meet with our witness who came in from out of state, was able to go over the power point with him, and finalize it so we could get them the
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 final version. Just to represent to your Honor, it certainly wasnt anything that was purposeful on our part. We got to it as I represented yesterday, got it to her as soon as we possibly could. I would point out just a few things, your Honor, with regard to this matter. It is demonstrative evidence. Everything that is in that power point and I wont dispute
the fact that there are quite a few slides. Everything that is in that power point is either contained in Dr. Prices report or his article that is going to be admitted. Again, its demonstrative so were not moving for admission, its just something hes going to be discussing during his testimony. I also point out for your Honor that, you know, weve had similar experiences with plaintiffs in this matter as well. We had some last minute changes from them with regard to two power points that we just bring to the Courts attention because quite frankly these things just happen in trial. So, you know, we would ask that we be allowed to use the power point. We certainly dont have any objection if Ms. Nessel needs additional time to prepare. We have no objection to that, your Honor, but we would ask that we be allowed to present the power point. THE COURT: Okay. I think -- demonstrative
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
evidence is just that, it demonstrates or helps the witness demonstrate to the Court in an easier fashion. We had a policy that each side would exchange it as soon as they had it. Each side in this case has gotten along, the civility is great. I have no reason to believe that the State didnt get it to them -- to the plaintiffs as soon they could. So what were going to do, well proceed. Its demonstrative, its not anything else. Ms. Nessel, if there comes a time when it becomes necessary to have more time, well certainly talk about. I have no problems with that. But I think -- lets see what its all about. As I say, weve seen demonstrative evidence before. And, again, its only to demonstrate and to help the Court and those are here understand the testimony. It is limited, however, of course, to the report. If it exceeds the report then there would be I suspect an objection indicating that -- not so much demonstrative evidence but the testimony itself because the demonstrative evidence is not evidence. So well proceed and take it one step at a time. MS. NESSEL: May I just briefly, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MS. NESSEL: My only issue, your Honor, is that I wont know that until I see it presented since I havent had an opportunity to review it. So thats why Im asking
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 move on. MS. NESSEL: All right. THE COURT: Well see. We may get a break and it to have some kind of lengthier recess so that I can at least review the slides to know whether they were in the report or not. Its very difficult as you can imagine the second that it appears for me then to know, you know, was it in the report -THE COURT: But you know -- okay. Im going to give you some time. But you know, its in the report. Its not whats on the screen that counts, its what the expert
testifies to. If hes testifying to something to whether it be on the screen or based upon his testimony, and its not in his report then I would suspect that youre going to make an objection. You already know the report Im sure backwards and forwards. So you will be able to make that objection. It has no bearing whatsoever to the demonstrative evidence. It has to do with his sworn testimony. MS. NESSEL: I would only bring to the Courts attention, theres some very complex charts and graphs with many, many numbers so I have to be able to go through the numbers to -THE COURT: Lets take it one at a time. Lets
may be right at the right time for lunch, and we may take a
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A BY MS. COOPER: Q Leslie Cooper. Good to see you live in person. Good morning. Good morning. Doctor Regnerus, you mentioned on Direct Exam yesterday that you asked two of the plaintiffs expert witnesses, Michael Rosenfeld and Gary Gates to serve as consultants on your NFSS Study; is that right? A Yes. you. M A R K R E G N E R U S, PH.D.,
10
little longer lunch. Lets take a look. Were not going to jam either side. I think each side throughout this whole trial their intent wasnt to do anything to the other side. Lets move on. Anything else? MS. STANYAR: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Wheres our witness? Were not going to re-swear you, youre still under oath. Counsel, you may proceed. MS. COOPER: Thank you. THE COURT: I dont know if the witness has met
HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: CROSS-EXAMINATION
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q
11
And you consider Michael Rosenfeld to be well-regarded
professionally; is that right? A Q Yes. And you consider Gary Gates to be well-regarded in
lesbian and gay demography; correct? A Q Yes. Now, turning your opinions, its not your opinion, is
it, that children raised by same sex parents necessarily have poor outcomes; is that right? A Q Would you restate that? Sure. Its not your opinion is it that children raised
by same sex parents necessarily have poor outcomes; is that right? A Q A Q Poorer outcomes. Poorer outcomes. That is not my opinion. And you agree that the social science of gay parenting
based on non-probability samples have taught us that it is possible for children raised in same sex households to develop normally; is that right? A Q Yes. In fact, you wrote in your -- in one of your NFSS
articles that most of the respondents in your own NFSS Study report ample success and largely avoid problematic physical and emotional difficulties regardless of their
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parents experiences; is that right? A It depends on the different outcomes. You know, some
12
outcomes thats certainly true. THE COURT: Speak a little bit slower. BY MS. COOPER: Q And you have written that, Its possible that there may be genuinely be two gold standards of family stability and context for children flourishing, a stably couple heterosexual household and a stably couple homosexual household but no population base sample analyses have yet been able to consistently confirm wide evidence of the latter; is that right? A Q A Q Yes, presuming youre directly quoting from -Your report. The report, yes. Okay. You have recognized that studies using non-
population base samples suggest that children in planned gay, lesbian, bisexual families seem to fair comparatively well; is that right? A Q Could you repeat that once more? Sure. MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I would ask that if were going to have lengthy quotes that Dr. Regnerus be able to see a copy of what shes quoting from? THE COURT: I think he has the report.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. COOPER: This was from the study itself. BY MS. COOPER: Q A Q Do you have a copy of your NFSS Study? From the study itself? The study itself? THE COURT: Do you remember what exhibit --
13
MS. HEYSE: Exhibit 6 from your original article. THE COURT: Counsel, you can continue to ask him questions, but just kind of refer him to the page. BY MS. COOPER: Q A Q Looking at page 766, the conclusion section. Yes. Bottom of the first paragraph, if youll read with me. You reference that, While previous studies suggest that children in planned GLB families seem to fare comparatively well: is that right? A Q Yes. Okay. Now you also believe that we should privilege
the collection of probability base data over other data; is that right? A Q Yes. In your view, the hallmark of a rigorous study is a
large representative pool of participants drawn from a population base random sample; is that right?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes. Thank you. Now, yesterday on Direct testimony you A Q Thats correct. But you recognize that this is not necessarily true
14
within the field of psychology; is that right? A I know psychologists dont privilege those kind of
samples in the way that sociologists or certainly demographers do. Q And your understanding is that most research in
psychology uses smaller non-representative samples; right? A I wouldnt speak for all of psychology, but there are
plenty that privilege smaller samples for sure. Q Okay. You had your deposition taken in January; is
that right? A Q Yes. And you have a copy of your transcript there? I have
one for you. If you turn with me to page 19. Line 19, beginning there, Question: And is it true that most research in psychology uses smaller non-representative samples? Answer: That is my understanding. Did I read that correctly?
talked about your criticism of the research on gay parent families that was discussed in a report by the American
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Psychological Association. Now that report was issued in 2005; is that correct? A Q Right.
15
And youre aware that research on children of same sex
parents did not stop in 2005? A Q A Q Correct. That there has been research conducted since then? Yes. Now, yesterday you testified that its premature I
think is the word you used to allow same sex marriage until we have large scale population base longitudinal studies on outcomes for children of same sex couples; is that right? A Yeah, and I think the reference -- I could be mistaken
but the reference is to premature to settle the signs around this stuff. Q Okay. You, yourself, did a large scale study of over
15,000 individuals in the NFSS; is that right? A We screened 15,000. Interviewed fully just under
3,000. Q A Q You would call that a large scale study. Yes. And after screening over 15,000 people you found only
two who were raised from birth in a same sex parent family; is that right? A Thats correct.
12-10285
16
That sample wasnt big enough to give you statistical
power to evaluate children raised from the beginning in same sex families; right? A Q A Q That is correct. You need a bigger group to do that. Definitely. How many people do you think you would need to survey,
to screen rather, to get a large enough group to study? A It depends a little bit on the outcome that youre
evaluating. If on average the outcomes at face value differ markedly, for example, the sample -- in adults whose mothers have same sex relationship, mothers -- adult children whose mothers had a same sex relationship they tend to report experiencing poverty or being on community assistance at notably greater rates. Its like 70 percent or something compared to closer to 10 to 20 percent for intact biological families. When you have a profound difference one does not need lots of cases because theres already a notable difference in the effect. But when youre detecting smaller effects then you need a larger number of cases. So like my reference yesterday to the CNN poll where if two candidates are running neck and neck you need a larger sample size to distinguish whether theres a statistically significant difference between those two. But
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if one is being -- in the other 70 to 30 you dont need that many cases. But certainly more than two, certainly more than -- ideally well over -- more than 50 or a 100. Q A
17
Okay. So if they need more than 50 or 100 lets say -Ideally. It depends on the outcome and how different
those outcomes are. Q So by my math to get 50 if your 15,000 people yielded
only two to get 50 -- you can check my math -- you would have to have 375,000 people screened? A I dont have to check your math, but its -- its a
lot more than 15,000 to screen which indicates that were not only dealing with a small population among whom stability was comparatively rare in that era, but were also -- I mean, it calls for more data analysis. So this is why people are interested in the census and what it has to say on this, or the versions of the census, The American Community Survey. But it raises an interest in new data collection. Q Because the census data doesnt actually provide
information on child outcomes; right? A Q A Q Not many. School progress is one. Right. Okay. How much did it cost you to do the project
surveying or screening 15,000 people?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q Youre saying how much did it cost? How much did it cost to do that survey? I think total about $415,000. So to screen -- your survey was not longitudinal,
18
right it was just one assessment. A Q A Q Yes. So if it was -- you say 400 -Four hundred fifteen is my recollection. So in order to screen say 375,000 people on multiple
assessments can you even estimate the cost of that? Is it in the tens of millions of dollars to fund that? A I cant offhand estimate, but its not something that
the federal grant system cant handle if it wishes to study this. Q Is it common for researches to get grants in the tens
and millions of dollars? A Well, I know that the Ad Health Project is now on it
way four or five, that was in the eight figures I know in terms of the grant. I mean, its unusual but its not unheard of for those large federally funded grants. Q And do you expect anyone would fund a tens of millions
of dollars study to assess whether children raised by same sex parents fair any differently than children raised by heterosexual couples when the professional groups in the fields of psychology, sociology and pediatrics have already
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A said we have sufficient research to answer this question and we know the answer? A One of the things I think it ought to be added to is
19
either an existing or an upcoming large federal grant and theres a handful of them out there at any given time. Im not aware of whats out there right now. It could be tacked onto an existing childrens study. So its not -- for all I know it could be in the works, but Im unaware of it. Q So in your opinion -- or is it your opinion that if
the type of study you describe, a nationally representative large scale, longitudinal study if that type of study is never done because its cost prohibitive is it your view that we should just never allow same sex couples to marry? MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Hes an expert. He can testify. Well, there are other aspects to consider including
scientific aspects. I mentioned in a deposition and I think I mentioned yesterday that marriage historically is about expectation of permanence, fidelity, and generally openness and welcoming of children. Scientifically and studies that we talked about yesterday permanence is -- permanence is less common especially in households of two women. Expectations of fidelity are less common in households of two men scientifically. And then you look at the welcoming
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of children and thats when we get into talking about expectations -- assisted reproductive technology which is very expensive and less expected among people of lower means. So its not just about science around child outcomes. Its also a science around common expectations and marriage. Q So either if we had the type of study you would
20
require that still wouldnt be -- that wouldnt answer the question and allow you to support same sex marriage. A There are more aspects to it than just a large child
outcome study for sure. Q Now, I want to go back to your statement that there
may be two gold standards of family stability and context for children flourishing, a stably coupled heterosexual household and a stably coupled homosexual household but no population base sample analyses have yet been able to consistently confirm wide evidence of the latter. That was your statement in your report; right? A Q Yes. Now, are there population base studies that
consistently confirm that children of low income couples develop as well as children of higher income parents? A Q Im going to ask you to repeat that one. Sure. Are there population base studies that
consistently confirm that children of low income couples
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 develop as well as children of higher income couples?
21
MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. Thats outside the scope of his report. THE COURT: Again, hes an expert and its crossexamination. If he knows. A Insofar as I know, yes.
BY MS. COOPER: Q Confirming the equally good outcomes of children of
low income and high income parents? A Confirming that, no. I mean -- typically
distinguishing that there are differences. Q Right. So, in fact, studies show the opposite. It
doesnt confirm that they are doing equally well, it confirms that children raised by low income parents dont on average develop as well. A Q Thats what Im agreeing with. Okay. Are there population base studies that
consistently confirm that children of non-college educated parents develop as well as children of college educated parents? A I know less about that, but on average I would expect
there to be differences. Q Right. Studies actually show the opposite that kids of
non-college educated parents dont develop as well as children of college educated parents.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A
22
Typically insofar as its associated with social class
and life chances for children. Q But you dont favor excluding low educated couples
from marriage; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. Thats not relevant to these proceedings. THE COURT: Overruled. Again, its crossexamination. A I do not.
BY MS. COOPER: Q And you dont favor excluding low income people from
marriage; is that right? A Q I do not. So it is not your view that marriage should be limited
to those groups whose children are statistically most likely to have positive child development outcomes. A Q Can you say that again? It is not your view, is it, that marriage should be
limited to those groups whose children are statistically most likely to have positive outcomes? A Q Correct, its not. And it is not your opinion that groups that are known
from the scientific research to raise children who fair more poorly should be excluded from marriage. A Right.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q
23
But in your view because there are, quote, outstanding
questions about whether children develop as well in same sex households compared to opposite households that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry? A Its my view that the science here is very new whereas
the science around these other questions youve asked is notably older. So theres an intellectual debate going on though people would like to close it quickly, I think it should still be open and it should be further investigated about the no differences debate. But as I mentioned just a little bit earlier it doesnt tackle the question of the hallmarks, the historic hallmarks of marriage. Q And thats a separate issue. Well got to that. MS. HEYSE: Im going to object, your Honor. He should be able to finish his response. THE COURT: He may complete his answer. I mean, its not just about the science around child
outcomes. Its also the science around long-standing expectations around marriage. BY MS. COOPER: Q So given -- you mentioned that the research on low
income and low educated couples is more longstanding, that research actually confirms poor outcomes but you dont favor excluding those groups. A Right.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Okay. Its a function of sort -- theyre more in line with
24
the longstanding criteria around marriage especially to the idea that marriage unites man and woman and the expectations around children because I think still today half of all children that are born are unplanned. And marriage for a very long time has served to unite the parents, the biological parents of children in a union that will be protective of that child whereas -- I mean -MS. COOPER: Your Honor, its non-responsive to the question. THE COURT: Theres no question. MS. COOPER: Thank you. BY MS. COOPER: Q Now, in your opinion and I think this was your
ultimate opinion in your expert report and Im happy to pull that out if you need but its a sentence so you tell me. In your opinion, It remains prudent for government to continue to recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman thereby promoting what is known to be an ideal environment for children; is that right? A Q Yes. Okay. Now, you recognize that same sex couples have
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 children either through adoption or assisted reproduction including in states like Michigan where they cant marry. A Q Right.
25
And you recognize that excluding same sex couples from
marriage does not prevent them from having children in these ways. A Q That is true. And youre not aware of any data showing that allowing
same sex couples to marry reduces the number of children who are raised in heterosexual biological parent families; is that right? A Q Im unaware of that. So, in fact, you acknowledged, did you not that you
dont actually know whether the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage actually does anything to promote what you consider to be the ideal environment for children. A Right, we dont know except that its an open
question. Moving forward theres more data to collect here. Q A Q But you dont know. I dont know. Okay. Now I want to ask you some questions about your
NFSS Study. You noted yesterday that to be included in your lesbian mother, or gay father groups the respondent had to affirmatively answer the following question: From when you were born until age 18 or until
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you left home did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex; is that right? A Q Yes. And just for the record if I use lesbian mother or
26
gay father terms Im not using that to suggest anything about the sexual orientation of the individuals but those are the terms used in the study so I may use that in shorthand. For example, if a respondent reports that her mother had a relationship with another woman for, say, six months but otherwise only had relationships with men that individual would be put in the lesbian mother group; right? A Right, and in a followup I said it would be better to
talk about this category as mothers whove had lesbian relationships or fathers who had gay relationships. Q A Q But this individual would still be in that category. Right, because the relationship was a same sex one. Okay. And over half of the respondents you deemed to
fall into the lesbian mother category never actually lived in a same sex household; right? A Well, they didnt live in the household but their
mother and her partner -Q So thats yes.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I dont purport to know how long the partnership
27
lasted. Q But they never lived in an household where there was
a same sex couple living. A Q Not according to them, yes, correct. Okay. And very few of the respondents that you deemed
to be children of a gay father ever lived in a same sex couple household. A Q A Q A In that era that was particularly uncommon. So thats correct? Did you say none of them ever -No, no, very few. Few. I want to say 23 percent lived for some share of
a year with their dad and his partner. Q And you have noted that a majority of the respondents
you deemed to fall into the lesbian mother or gay father group were the product of a failed heterosexual union; correct? A Q A Q I said a majority, did you say? Yes. Yes. Now, your primary heterosexual parent comparison group
or any of your heterosexual parent comparison groups were not defined by asking the question did your parent ever have a heterosexual relationship; right? Thats not how you
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 established groups. A Q That is correct. Your primary comparison group was a group of
28
individuals who lived from birth to age 18 in an intact -two biological parent family; is that right? A Q A Q According to them, yes. Well, all of this is according to them. Yes. And this group which is called in shorthand IBF,
intact biological family, excluded all divorced, a single parent, heterosexual families; right? A Q A Excluded who? Divorced people? Right. I mean, they may have had a divorce before the
child came along. But the child experienced it as an intact biological family for the duration of their childhood. Q Okay. So any child who had experienced divorce was not
in that group. A Q That is correct. And similarly any child who experienced single parent
family life, that was stripped away, not in that group. A Q Correct. Okay. So the idea of intact biological family group
was defined by the stability of the families. A Yes. I did that intentionally because stability has
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 long been seen as a resource. And in a lot of the literature in this area the exact stability of the comparison group was often unclear sometimes entirely.
29
Historically, stability is a good thing, I wanted to make sure that we understood the comparison category was fairly clear. Q So thats a yes it was defined by it being a stable
family group. A Q A Yes. Okay. By the way, we dont know how happy this group was. I
didnt make that -- are they together. Q So on the one hand you compared the two groups -- two
of the groups in which a majority of the individuals had been through a family breakup. That would be the lesbian mother and gay father group. You compared them to a group that was defined by its stability, the intact biological parent -- sorry, intact biological family group. A Q Could you repeat the first part of that? Sure. You compared two groups in which the majority of
the respondents had been through a family breakup. That would be the lesbian mother and gay father group. You compared them to a group that was defined by the stability of the group, the intact biological family group. A Yes.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Okay.
30
That was not the criteria by which -- the criteria by
which I sorted them whether they had a same sex -- the parents had a same sex relationship. Q A Q But that was the comparison. Yes. Now, the two respondents in the lesbian mother group
who like the individuals in the IBF group lived from birth to age 18 in an intact stable family appeared well adjusted. A way. Q A Q Yesterday you testified they made -Yes. And you recognize that I think you just said a few On average. I dont recall them being notably either
moments ago that stability is associated with better outcomes for children. A Q Right. And divorce is generally associated with poorer
outcomes for children; is that right? A Q Yes. Now, yesterday you said you had no idea what the study
would reveal before the data came in. Are you saying you really had no idea that a sample in which most of the subjects experienced a family breakup would fair worse than
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a comparison group where not a single one of the subjects had experienced the family breakup because it was defined to exclude those individuals? A
31
What I mean by the statement is I had no idea what the
-- when the data was in the field how it would return in terms of the number of people who had said their parents had same sex relationship or what their household calendars would look like. Thats what I mean by I had no idea. Q But you recognize that in the era in which these
individuals grew up planned same sex parent families was quite uncommon. A Q It was, and I mention that in the study. Okay. Now, you said yesterday I think that individuals
in the lesbian mother group had outcomes that were very comparable to the individuals in the step family group; is that right? A If thats what I had said yesterday, I think -- step
family, yeah. Q A Okay. I think what I said was in the followup study where I
split the pies a little bit more narrow the fewest differences between cases where adult children had a mom or same sex relationship and they lived with their partner and single parents who did not have subsequent partners. I think that was the most close equation that I mentioned
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 yesterday. Q
32
But I think you also mentioned the comparison to step
families were very comparable? A Q Slightly less but comparable. Okay. Now that actually wouldnt be surprising, would
it, given that in almost every case in the lesbian mother group the mothers same sex partner was not an original member of the household. It was a later formed relationship. A Q Sure. Okay. Now, you made clear yesterday that you were not
making any claims about causation regarding child outcome in the NFSS Study; is that right? A Q Right. Okay. In fact, you agree that the sub-optimal outcomes
that you found in the lesbian mother and gay father groups may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent; is that right? A Since I did not measure it, I cannot make a claim
about it. Q Okay. Now, switching gears a little bit. I want to
talk about the pool. So the respondents in the NFSS were ages 18 to 39; right? A Q Yes. So the data was collected in 2011 and 2012; right?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes.
33
So that means they were born from 1972, to 1993; that
window? A Q Yes. At the time the individuals in the NFSS were being
raised, you agree that stigma was more pronounced and social support for lesbian and gay parents was far more modest than it is today; is that right? A I would suspect so. I did not measure that. I mean, I
measured how often they were bullied, things like that, but one can presume so. Q Now, in your article on the NFSS you noted that it is
often the case and it certainly is true of the NFSS that a gay or lesbian parent first formed a heterosexual union prior to coming out of the closet; right? A Q Right. And you also wrote that the NFSS may best capture what
might be called an earlier generation of children of same sex parents and includes among them many who witnessed a failed heterosexual union. MS. HEYSE: Again, your Honor, I would just ask if were going to be reading from specific -THE COURT: I agree, and a little bit slower. MS. COOPER: Sure, sure. BY MS. COOPER:
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Yes. Okay. A Q Yes. Okay. Lets stay on page 756. Skip that. On page 765, if you go to the third paragraph from the bottom, last sentence, Q A Q Youve got your NFSS article with you? Yes.
34
If you would turn to page 756, and if you look with me
at the bottom paragraph on that page, second sentence. Todays children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be planned (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15-20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions. You wrote that?
Child outcomes in stable planned GLB families and those that are the product of previous heterosexual unions are quite likely distinctive as previous studies conclusions would suggest. You wrote that?
And I followed it up with sort of -- we dont know how
many of those actually are. Q You dont believe that you can draw conclusions from
your NFSS Study about outcomes for children in planned
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lesbian couple families; is that right? A If by planned you mean assisted reproductive
35
technology things like that, yeah. Q Okay. Now, thats families like the plaintiffs --
well, actually families like many couples seeking to marry and form families together; is that right? A Q I dont purport to know what share of that is true. Okay. I think you emphasized this yesterday but I want
to make sure we understand that the NFSS Study documented differences statistically significant differences between groups. In other words, in the groups in the so-called lesbian mother group and those in the intact biological family group, but it did not concern itself with the magnitude of those differences. A Correct, and I stated in the article that was not my
purpose. Q Now, you talked yesterday about the audit of the NFSS
Study conducted by the Journal Social Science Research that -- the journal that published the study. A It was authorized by the journal. It was not conducted
by the journal. Q Authorized by the journal, okay. And you expressed
some views about the motives of the individual who wrote the audit, but one question about this that I just dont think was answered yesterday was -- it was the journal that
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 published that audit; isnt that right? A Q I believe so. Now, are you familiar with a sociologist named Paul
36
Amato? A Q A Q Yes. Hes a professor of sociology at Penn State? Yes. And you consider Paul Amato to be a well-regarded
scholar in family structure studies? A Q I do. You consider him to be a level and level-headed
scholar? A Q Generally speaking. And you consider him to be a scholar whos right down
the middle politically neither liberal, nor conservative? A He had struck me at one point. I have no idea if that
is entirely accurate, but he strikes me as a moderate. Q And, in fact, you asked Paul Amato to be one of the
consultants on your study. A Q A Q A I did. And he agreed? He did. So he served as a consultant? Yes. MS. COOPER: I like to mark a document as an
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for -MS. COOPER: Not to admit. THE COURT: Okay. BY MS. COOPER: Q review? exhibit for identification. Its Exhibit 54. MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I would just ask that we be provided a copy. We have not seen it.
37
THE COURT: I think counsel as a bunch of copies. MS. HEYSE: If we could have a few minutes to
THE COURT: Sure. Show it to the witness so he can review it also. MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I would just note for the record that we did agree to exchange exhibits in advance of the trial and this was not provided to us. THE COURT: Why was it not provided? MS. COOPER: This is being used for identification to ask questions, and it was an exhibit that was used at the deposition, they have it. THE COURT: Do you intend to introduce it? MS. COOPER: No. THE COURT: Okay. MS. HEYSE: Oh, Im sorry. THE COURT: Its only for purposes of use, but not
So, Dr. Regnerus, this is a statement Paul Amato wrote
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q passage. BY MS. COOPER: Q A Q If you look at the second paragraph from the top. First page? Yes. Second sentence, I regret that before writing that post -Who wrote that? Ill clarify. The first three paragraphs in Italics about your NFSS Study; is that right? A The source is a blog. Im not sure what all of it is
38
verbatim, Paul Amatos words, and what is -Q Well, Ill direct your attention. Thank you for
clarifying. A Q This is not Paul Amatos blog. Understood. If youll read with me. It says here -THE COURT: Tell him where youre reading. MS. COOPER: I just want to find the right
are statements from somebody who wrote the blog, not attributable to Paul Amato. MS. HEYSE: Im going to object, your Honor, to the extent this is hearsay. THE COURT: Im not sure where shes going at. The first three were not written by -MS. COOPER: Im trying to direct Professor Regnerus to the statement that this blogger says,
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question? question? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. COOPER: The bloggers name is Phil Cohen, I believe. This is something we looked at your deposition. BY MS. COOPER: Q A Do you not recall identifying it? I do, yeah. I just dont know -- I cant identify on There is a statement sent to me by Paul Amato which I agree to post and then he posts the statement below. A And who is he? THE COURT: Who is the blogger, is that your
39
this who wrote this top part. Q Okay. But the part I want to flag your attention to is -- this is not Paul Amato,
in the second paragraph it says this is the blogger,
I regret that before -MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, Im going to object to the extent of reading something into the record -THE COURT: Sustained. The blogger said something and now whats your
MS. COOPER: I dont really care what the blogger said, I just wanted to direct Professor Regnerus so the statement from Paul Amato that is posted here.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions. MS. COOPER: Its just to feature the statement. BY MS. COOPER: Q A So if you can go to page 3 with me. Okay. If you would look at the second paragraph from statement. A Q Are theres 12 pages to this? Im only seeing four. A Q Yes. So thats the beginning of the statement. So Id like you to turn to page 3 of this Amato. Do you see that heading in bold? THE COURT: Good. BY MS. COOPER: Q That begins,
40
Thoughts on the Mark Regnerus 2012 Study by Paul
This is the first four. I didnt print the comments to
the blog because -- I think, in fact, that may have been something that counsel for defendants did not want to include in the exhibit. But either way I did not consider that. THE COURT: The exhibit is just to ask him
the bottom, okay, beginning with the second sentence, and read along with me, Many --
12-10285
41
MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, its hearsay and she cant read it into the record. MS. COOPER: Its not for the truth. I want to ask him if he agrees with statements made by one of his own consultants about his study. THE COURT: For that purpose, you may. BY MS. COOPER: Q Many conservative observers have cited the Regnerus
study as if it provided evidence that being raised by gay or lesbian parents is harmful to children. This claim is disingenuous because the study found no such thing. A noteworthy example came from Regnerus himself who signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court citing his study as evidence against same sex marriage. This is curious because on page 766 in his 2012 article, Regnerus stated that his study was not intended to either affirm or undermine the legal right to same sex marriage. And on page 768 of his response to the commentaries in the same issue, he stated, That his data should not be used to press any political program. Given these cautious early statements it is exasperating to see Regnerus later cite his own study as evidence against same sex marriage. So, first question about this: Is Professor Amato who is a consultant on your study correct to say that it is
12-10285
42
disingenuous to claim that the NFSS Study provides evidence that being raised by gay or lesbian parents is harmful to children? A The question hinges around sort of what does it mean And I think we mentioned this a
to be raised by, right?
little bit yesterday and it says gay or lesbian parents. My mistake and acronyms notwithstanding I talk about parents who have same sex relationship with no assumptions about their orientation. So when he talks about being raised by which implies some degree of time I assume and household presence I assume. But then he goes and uses gay or lesbian as an adjective which I dont think -- I mean, I dont have data on the orientation, its harmful to children. I think the jury is out on this, figuratively speaking. What we need is -- the absence raises significant questions about children who grow up in families where a parent has a same sex relationship. What it doesnt answer his question about orientation, and it didnt come design to answer political questions. It came design to address an intellectual question. Q Okay. So he is correct in your view that -- sorry. He
is correct that you said the study was not intended to either affirm or undermine the legal rights of same sex marriage?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Thats what I wrote in the original study, yes. Okay. Okay. Great. Now, are you aware that yesterday the Chair of the Sociology Department at the University of Texas, your department, issued a statement posted on its website stating the following: Like all faculty -MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay. MS. COOPER: Im happy to provide a copy if you
43
like. Im not seeking to admit it again -- happy to show a copy if you dont have it. MS. HEYSE: I dont have a copy. THE COURT: And, again, its only for purposes of cross-examination. MS. HEYSE: Thank you. MS. COOPER: So Ive marked this for identification as Exhibit 55. BY MS. COOPER: Q So, if youll read along with me, the statement says, Like all faculty Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the sociology department of the University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association which takes
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A the position that the conclusions he draws from his study
44
of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ, partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims. Theres additional material but I just wanted to call your attention to that paragraph. Were you aware of this statement? I saw it yesterday. Okay. And what is your reaction to that? Its regrettable. I think the University has
characterized my academic freedom. I guess they have been getting negative press probably about my appearance here, and decided to make a statement which they had not made before even though I had conducted the research -- the process a few years ago. The article came out a year and a half ago. I think they just wanted to distance themselves from me which is sad. And I heard from some of my colleagues that this was an inappropriate thing for the department to do. Q And you are aware that The American Sociological
Association did submit a brief, an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Windsor and Perry cases stating that
12-10285
45
your study doesnt allow for conclusions about being raised by -- the impact of being raised by same sex parents; is that right? A Q Im aware of that. Okay. And I want to switch gears away from NFSS now
and your research and ask about another study. Youre familiar with a study done by Douglas Allen based on the Canadian Census that looks at high school graduation rates? A Ive read and I wrote a little summary piece about it
but Im not intimately familiar with that data. It cannot be replicated so far as I can tell because it was proprietary to the Canadian Census. Q Okay. You mentioned that you wrote a little blog piece
or a little article about that. A Q Yes. In that article you said that a limitation of this --
actually, let me show it to you so we dont have any confusion here. The document Ive marked for identification as Exhibit 56 called A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada thats the blog piece you wrote about the Allen study? A Q Yes. Okay. If you could turn with me to the second page.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q If you look at the third paragraph from the bottom, and read along. It says, Every study has its limitations and this one does, too. It is unable to track the household history of children nor is it able to establish the circumstances of the birth of the children whose education is evaluated, that is, were they the product of a heterosexual union, adopted, or born via surrogate or assisted reproductive technology. You wrote that? I did.
46
Okay. And you have said that you would bet that given
the time period in which these 17 to 22 year olds in Allens study were born that many of the individuals who were in the same sex family group were the product of former heterosexual unions; right? A Q A Q A Q Did I say that? I dont think I said that. Well, lets take a look at your deposition. I may have said it. If you could point to the page? Would you agree with that now? If you would repeat the question. Sure. You would bet that given the time period in
which the 17 to 22 year olds in Allens study were born many of the individuals who were in the same sex family group were the product of a former heterosexual union.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A A Q A Its likely given the timing. Sure. Again, we dont really have good data on sort of ART
47
in the past. We really dont have good data on it at the present. Q A Q Okay. But you think its likely. Its likely. And youve said you suspect that planned same sex
couple families were not what the Allen study evaluated on average. A Q I dont think he could, yeah. I mean -Okay. Now, theres been a lot of discussion about
couple stability. So I want to ask you some questions about that. First of all, can you tell us generally what the divorce rate for heterosexuals is in this country? A What do you mean by divorce rate? Rate per year, I
think its two percent per year. Q Isnt the data over sort of a ten-year period? MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, Im going to object. THE COURT: Let him answer. MS. COOPER: Im sorry. I thought he was finished. My apologies. Go ahead. My recollection is the divorce rate is, you know, its
24,000 married women per year.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOPER: Q
48
Okay. And is there data showing the divorce rate over,
say, you know, percentages of marriages that fail at, say, five years or ten years? A The National Study of Family and Growth is able to do
it. Ive crunched it once. I dont recall offhand the numbers. But it varies by, you know, age at marriage and things like that. Q But as a population as a whole looking at all
marriages you dont have a sense of what the divorce rate is over -A Over ten years, it would be guess work. Around 20 to
30 percent -- over five years? No, it be over ten or 15 years. It would really be guess work and it would be inappropriate for me to do that. Q Okay. Now, you talked a lot about the issues of
instability in the NFSS Study and the lesbian mother and gay father groups. But there are two concepts that I think got potentially blurred yesterday and I want to see if we can clarify. The concepts of household instability on the one hand, and couple instability on the other. So I have a couple of questions to help get at that. So, I think your testimony made clear that individuals in the lesbian mother and gay father groups experienced significant household instability, youd agreed
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with that; right? A Q Right. For example, you noted that a majority of the
49
individuals in this group had started out life in a heterosexual mother father family that broke up; right? Thats household instability, thats not about couple instability. A Q A None of these are choices that children make, right? Of course. But is that correct? Thats who we are interviewing is the adult children.
Theyre telling us who came and went. Q Understood. So, again, that example, that in the
majority of the families, you know, the individuals in lesbian mother and gay father group, the fact that they came from a prior heterosexual union that broke up thats an example of household instability but not an example of same sex couple instability; is that right? A Correct. If, in fact, those -- what broke was the
opposite sex relationship. Q A Which was a majority of the household -That was the majority of the circumstances around
there origins. Q Okay. Now, so, for example, in the NFSS the fact that
a subject only spent say two years living in a same sex household that doesnt necessarily mean that the couple
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relationship lasted two years; is that right? A That is true, although Im not sure why, you know, a
50
live-in relationship would suddenly, you know, end and the partner would not be the household. They may have moved, but I would presume most of them that when a partner leaves the household of the mother and her child that the relationship has probably ceased, but I dont know that for sure. Q Now, in some of the cases that you only count two
years of living with the same sex partner because it was a change of custody, right, the kid went, say, to live from moms house to dads house. So in that particular case the couple may be together, may not be together; is that right? A True. That would require one to go into the actual
individual household rosters and look at what happened in different kids. Q But is it correct that the fact that a particular
individual reports living two years with the same sex couple and in some cases that has no bearing on the length of time of the couple, it may be that the child left; right? A It could be, although its uncommon and general for a
mother to lose -- you know, cede custody of her child some -Q So none of the children in the NFSS Study --
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A many. Q Let me start that again. Are you saying that none of Oh, Im sure some of them did, but I dont know how
51
the individuals in the lesbian mother group experienced a change of custody from moms custody to dads? A I didnt say that, no. Im just saying its less
common for a mother to lose custody in general. You cant really tell lose custody. You just know that a child lived with mom or didnt live with mom. The child would report as an adult who he lived with at different years. Q So did any of the individuals in the lesbian mother
group from the NSFF report a change from living with mom to living with dad? A many. Q Okay. And also in some cases, you know, you stopped I believe there are some cases. I dont recall how
counting when the child was 18, right, so you -- the fact that an individual reports that moms partner moved in when they were 16 and then at 18 youre done counting; right? A Q Right. Okay. Now, the individuals in the NSFF were all raised
prior to marriage being an option for same sex couples anywhere in the United States; is that right? A If we do the math I guess the youngest people in the
NFSS were 18 in 2011. So they should have been cases -- I
12-10285
52
dont think -- I dont know the state where they lived. But there should have been cases where they lived in states where their mothers could married, right? Q Let me classify because I think I can be more precise
in the question. None of the individuals in the NSFF were born into families where couples, same sex couples could have been married; is that correct? A Q That is correct. Okay. And you agree that marriage helps promotes
stability among heterosexual couples. A In general I think it reflects stability. People who
wish to make their union secure seek marriage. And marriage generally speaking entails -- reflects some security and it entails some security and puts up some barriers to break up. Q A Q A Q A So it does help stabilize couples. Conceptually, yes. Conceptually. Yes. In reality do you know? Theres something called self-selectivity like the
kinds of people who marry are the kind of people who are more apt to stay together anyway. But generally speaking its understood that marriage both reflects and fosters
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Yes. Okay. Which is a reflection of people who wish to have security. Q
53
Okay. So it reflects -- selects for stable couples and
also fosters stability in those couples; is that right? A Q Yes. Okay. And you have said you would expect greater
stability among married gay and lesbian couples than those even in civil unions; is that right? A Q A Q Can you point to where I said that? Sure. Do you have your report? The report? I dont think I have the report. I will mark this as 57. Again for identification only. If youll turn with me to paragraph 49 of your report. Its on page 13. A Q Okay. Now, just to give the context the previous paragraph
youll see is referencing a work by Michael Rosenfeld, a study by Rosenfeld. In 49 you say,
In that study the highest stability rates appear among heterosexual married couples while notably better stability is located among married, gay and lesbian couples than among those in civil unions as would be expected. You wrote that?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relational stability tended to track towards, you know, greater legal stability. Q
54
But for heterosexuals you recognize that its not just
the matter of selecting the most stable, marriage also helps foster stability. A Q On average, yes. Okay. Now, you mentioned yesterday that in the NFSS
the household rosters, those are the calendars that you talked about, right, they are complicated not just among the individuals in the lesbian mother and gay father group but also in other groups like the step family group and single parent family group; is that right? A Q well? A Q Yes. So there was instability in all the groups in the Yes. So there was instability for those individuals as
study except for the one that was defined by the stability that would be the intact biological family group. A Q Right. Okay. Now, you talked yesterday about your decision
not to control for family instability, that you didnt think it was appropriate to do that, but you did effectively control for stability among the exclusively heterosexual parent groups by creating the intact
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 biological family group; right? You separated out all the stable ones. A I didnt control for it. It is reflected in the
55
category. Q Okay. Still talking about the topic of couples
stability yesterday you cited some data from the UK where you said I think there were higher dissolution rates of civil partnerships of lesbians compared to gay men -A Yesterday, I dont saying anything about the UK
yesterday. Q Oh, okay. I thought you did. My notes may be bad. You also talked yesterday about Michael Rosenfelds study on school progress using the US Census; right? A Q Yes. And you identified this study as relevant to couples
stability I think the language you used, you said the study controlled the way instability. A Q Controlled for, yes. But just to clarify what he controlled for was whether
the child actually lived in the particular family structure at issue during the past five years; right? A Q A Right. He didnt actually control for couple breakups. Right.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I mean, the Census data doesnt provide that
56
information; does it? A Q So far as I know. Okay. Now, you raised the issue of stability in same
sex couple relationships but I think you started to touch on it before that theres a variety among groups in the United States about divorce rates when I asked you a question about the divorce rate. A Q Yes. So, for example, there are differences in divorce
rates associated with race? A Q Generally speaking, yes. Different racial groups have different rates of
divorce. A Q Right. So is it correct that African-Americans have a higher
rate of divorce than other racial groups? A Q On average. And it is correct that interracial couples have higher
risk of divorce than same race couples? A On average although Im not entirely -- I mean, Im
less clear with that. Q Okay. And I think you mentioned yesterday that
remarriages by what -- I understood it means second marriages?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes. That remarriages fail at a higher rate than first
57
marriages. A Q Correct. Do you favor excluding African-Americans from marriage
based on the elevated rate of divorce in that group? A Q I dont. In fact, if there were population base data showing
that African-Americans had a breakup rate that was higher than that of same sex couples you would not favor excluding African-Americans from marriage. MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Hes an expert. He can answer if he has an opinion. A I dont.
BY MS. COOPER: Q Okay. And do you favor excluding people who have
previously already been married and divorced from remarrying given the elevated rate of divorce for remarriages? A I have no strong opinion on that. I tend to wish
people would try to work it out. Its not always possible I understand that, their original marriages. But I dont hold a strong opinion on that.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q So you dont have an opinion about whether prior
58
divorce people should be allowed to get married? A I mean it exists. I dont think much about it. I dont
have a strong opinion about that. Q So if Michigan were to pass a law barring marriage by
people who had been divorced you wouldnt have an opinion about that? MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. It calls for speculation and hes answered the question. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. COOPER: Q Okay. Its not view then is it that groups -- the fact
that a group has an elevated divorce rate is a reason to exclude the group from marriage. A Q Correct. Switching gears and focusing on issues of biological
relatedness what I think you called diminished kinship yesterday. Just to make sure Im clear with your terms when you talk about diminished kinship you mean the lack of a biological relationship between parent and child; is that right? A Q A Q Between mother, father and child, yes. Between each parent and the child. Right. Okay. And you assert that diminished kinship poses
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 risks to children; is that right? A Q On average. On average. Okay. An example that youve given of
59
diminished kinship would include couples who have children through donor sperm or donor ova; right? A It depends on -- I mean -- if its a donation from
outside the couple, that would be a diminished kinship. Q -A Some form of assisted reproductive technology are Right. Somebody goes to a sperm bank or an egg donor
within the biological parents. Q A Q A Q That would be an example of diminished kinship? Not if its within the biological parents. Right, but if its outside of. Correct. And that includes both for heterosexual couples and
same sex couples who have children in this way; is that right? A Q Yes. And you said the majority of children born through
assisted reproductive technology are raised by heterosexual parents; is that right? A By the numbers that should be the case, yes. Only one
to one and a half percent of all children born today are born via assisted reproductive technology. I dont know
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we have data about whether thats outside the
60
biological couple or not. Were talking about pretty small numbers though. Q But the majority are heterosexual couples not same sex
couples. A Q Yes. And you dont have an opinion on whether the use of
donor sperm, again, donor from outside the family whether the use of donor sperm or ova should be prohibited. A Q A From outside the family? Meaning from a sperm bank lets say. Im not a fan of that. I dont have a strong opinion.
Ive never weighed in on the subject. Q Okay. You dont have an opinion about whether it
should be prohibited? A Im not of fan of it, Ill tell you that. I dont have
a strong sense about the legal permission around it. I think it diminishes kinship so we should privilege that which enhances kinship between a mother, father and child. Q Now, in support of the proposition that the lack of
biological relationship between parents and child poses a risk to children you testified yesterday about comparative rates of abuse by step parents compared to biological parents; right? A Can you say that one more time?
12-10285
61
Sure. That you -- in support of your proposition that
lack of biological relationship between parents and child poses a risk to children in support of that proposition you testified about comparative rates of abuse by step parents and biological parents; right? A Q Yes. Now, you testified theres an elevated risk of abuse
by step parents, right, compared to biological parents? A Q Right, and -But you dont favor prohibiting marriage by people who
already have children, right? In other words, people who are going to create step families despite the heightened risk to children in step families? A Step families come from different kinds of places. I
mean, sometimes a parent dies and somebody remarries so they remarry into a step family, but through divorce, but through death. So step families are complicated as well. Q So is it your understanding then that step families
that form, you know, after a parent is widowed versus divorce that they dont have the same kind of risks? A I dont know if theres a difference in how those
outcomes work. I do know that, you know, it can be more difficult to -- on a child to navigate step families and different custody arrangements which is not the case typically when the parent dies and the surviving parent
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 remarries. Q A Okay. And in the -- the group of people for whom the child
62
outcomes looked next best where kids for whom their mothers and fathers were married until one of them passed away. Q Okay. So, again, you identified data showing elevated
risk of abuse in step families compared to biological families -A Q Outside the study. Not the NFSS. Understood. So you cited data showing elevated risk abuse in step families compared to biological parent families, but you dont favor excluding people who are going to create step families, in other words, people who already have children from remarrying. A What do you mean by people who are going to create
step families? Q A Q A People who have children -Right. -- and want to marry someone. Right. Generally not, although, you know -- it is more
sympathetic when people have -- when a parent has died than -- as I said earlier its nice when people try to work out their arrangements and not get a divorce in the first place because that creates hostile instability for children. But,
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A in general, no. Q So even a parent who has divorced, have children,
63
divorced, theyd like to remarry a new person, you dont think that should be barred. MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. I believe thats been asked and answered. THE COURT: Im not sure. He may answer. I have no, you know, strong opinion on the legality of
that. I mean, its been around for time and memorial. So I dont have a strong opinion about it. Q Okay. Now, Id like to turn to your report, paragraph
28. Let me get you the page. Its at the bottom of page 7,it begins. Paragraph 28. You got it? A Q Yes. You say, Yet, every child born to a couple via ART and let me pause, by that you mean if its a reproductive technology? A Q Yes. Okay. So, Ill start again. Yet, every child born to a couple via ART (planned gay or lesbian family) retains at least one nonbiological step parent suggesting the more favorable comparison group would not be the biologically intact mother-father household, but heterosexual step families.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Did I read that right? Right. Okay. Now, you agree that most heterosexual step
64
families are blended families; is that right? A Meaning children come from both the marrying woman and
the marrying father? Q Well, by blended -- we can look at your deposition
if youd like, but let me ask you this way, by blended do you understand that term to mean the creation of a household out of previous failed households, or failed union? A Some of them fail. Some of them, you know, one person
was never married, and they marry somebody who had been married before, and theyre blending something. Theyre not always blending completely, you know, new families. Sometimes one partner has children, sometimes they both have children. Q A Q Understood. Sometimes blended marriages with no children. But its blending two prior families whether they had
children -A Q One of them might have been single. And in heterosexual step families youre generally
talking about a new person coming in to somebody -- an existing family.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q If there are children -- yeah.
65
Okay. Now, you wouldnt use the term step family if
you had two single people who got married and neither had children; right? Step families -A Q A Q Two single parents who -Two single people with no children. Two people. You have to have children, excuse me, to have a step
family; right? A Q Correct. Okay. So step family among heterosexuals are, you
know, a new person coming into an existing family with children. A Q Right. Okay. And in planned same sex parent families you
dont have that circumstance; correct? A Q A Q A Planned as in assisted reproductive technology. Correct. Right. Okay. Now -But you still do have -- you know, somebodys not a
biological parent of the child. Q Thats the analogy, right, thats one is non-
biologically related but -A So theres still diminished kinship.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q You have diminished kinship but you dont have the
66
circumstances of the disruption of an existing family unit. A Q Its a little bit different, right. Okay. Now, you -- I believe in your deposition you
were not aware of research that looks at the well-being of children conceived through assisted reproduction using donor sperm or ova; is that right? A Q A Population base data. Right. Youre not aware of studies on that? Assisted reproductive technology, large population
basis, no, Im not. Q A What about other studies? Non-probability. Non-probability ones, you know, where theyre kind of
snowballed samples or something -Q A Q Youre aware -Right. NLFS is like that as far as I can tell. Have you reviewed the research, the non-population
base research that body of research on assisted reproduction whether its heterosexual or same sex couples? A Q A By review you mean -Read. Some of the NLFS studies Ive read, not all of them.
Theres a bunch of them. Q Outside of the NLFS have you read the research that
looks at -- compares children raised by donor -- let me ask
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it this way. Studies looking at a class of donor conceived children and naturally conceived children, heterosexual families? Have you read that body of research? A Q A Q Can you cite a particular author? Im just asking if youve read a body of research? Ive read some examples I think out of England. And are you aware of research showing then that
67
children conceived by donor insemination whether heterosexual parents or same sex parents fair no differently than naturally conceived children in those studies? A I dont recall comparison categories. I wouldnt want
to speak about any particular study unless I was looking at it in front of me and looking at the sample sizes, and looking at how the comparison categories were constructed. Sometimes you can detect no differences in some of these small non-probability samples. And its a function of diminished ability to detect real differences that exists. I often will look at the raw scores, right, and at least see how the differences are in the simple difference level even if theyre not detecting any statistically significant difference because they may not have the statistical power to do so. But I dont want to claim I know about a particular study unless Im looking at it in front of me.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Can we turn to your deposition? If you will look at
68
page 43, please? If you would go to line 10 and Ill read with the question, beginning, Question: Are you familiar with the research on children conceived through ART using donor egg or sperm with a heterosexual or gay parent family? Answer: I dont believe theres any population base data doing that. Question: Are you aware of any research looking at such families? Answer: Im not. It may exist. Right. I think I was referring to that, the population
base data. I was not aware of anything. I have looked at some non-population base data. Q A Q Okay. Referring to the population base aspect of it. If youll turn to page 44, line 2, Question: Sure. Do you know whether the nonbiological parent -- Im sorry. Withdrawn. Moving away from assisted reproduction, focusing on adoption. You are aware of research showing that in adoptive families where the parents lack, both parents lack a biological relationship with the children, that theres research showing that adoptive parents invest more time in their children than two biological parent families.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A
69
Theres some research that suggest that, yes. I dont
know if the research would all conclude that. Q Okay. Now, you cite uncertainty about outcomes for
children of same sex parents as a basis to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, but you have no opinion do you whether lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to be adopt children? A Q Can you state that again? You cite uncertainty about the outcomes for children
of same sex parents as a basis to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, but you have no opinion on whether lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. A The uncertainty about -- Im still trying to find the
first part of that clause. Q I can ask it differently. I can streamline this
question for you. A Q Okay. Do you have an opinion on whether lesbian and gay
couples be allowed to adopt children? A Q A I dont have a strong opinion that, no. Do you have any opinion? The State looks to place children with families as a
means helping kids who are, you know, orphans -- looking -its a concession. The State looks to do that. I dont have
12-10285
70
a strong opinion on -- Ive thought very hard about it, who should they go to, to one parent, two parents, single, I mean -Q So, do you have an opinion -- you said you dont have
a strong opinion, do you have any opinion about whether lesbian and gay couples ought to be allowed to adopt children? A Q A Q I just havent fashioned one. You dont have one; is that right? Yes. Okay. So you have no opinion about whether a child
would be better off staying in the foster care system rather than being adopted by two parents of the same sex? A When you think about the States interest in
sheltering children, most people think its better to be out of the foster care system than in the foster care system. Otherwise -- some kids fair okay in the foster system, but its not the ideal. Q So you do have an opinion about whether children would
better off staying in foster care than being adopted by two parents of the same sex? A I think you asked me that at the deposition, I dont
recall what I said. I think I probably had no strong opinion on it. Q Do you have any opinion?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q No, I dont think so.
71
Okay. Now, in cases like the situation for plaintiffs
in this case where you have a child who is adopted into a family headed by a same sex couple is that right that you have no opinion about whether its better for the child to be adopted by just one of the adults or both? A Given that its a concession in the first place and
not an ideal -- not ideal for the child to be apart from its biological parents, but sometimes its a necessary concession, I dont believe I made a statement about the -whether its one or two. Is that what youre asking? Q Im just asking do you have an opinion about in such
situations is it better for the child to be adopted by just one of the two adults raising him or her -A Well, sometimes its the biological child of one of
the two adults. Q Okay. So a child who is adopted out of the foster care
system not related to either partner -A Q Right. -- adopted into a family headed by a same sex couple
do you have an opinion whether its better for that child to have -- to be adopted by just one of those adults or both of those adults? A I think I said at the deposition I didnt have an
opinion on that.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay. And is that correct, you dont have an opinion
72
on it? A Yeah, I havent thought through all the permutations
and combinations so I dont. Q A Q So you dont have an opinion. Right. Okay. And similarly in situations where a child is
conceived into a lesbian couple family through assisted reproduction you have no opinion about whether its better for the child to be able to adopted by the non-biological parent to have a legal tie with both parents in the family? A I think you asked me again at the deposition I dont
have a strong formulated opinion on that. Q A Im sorry, I didnt hear you. I dont think I have a strong formulated opinion on
who should have legal connections and -- when kinship is diminished. Q A Q A Q Do you have any opinion? I dont believe I listed one last time. Do you have one now? No. Okay. Now, in situations where a heterosexual couple
conceives using, say, donor sperm from a sperm bank, is it right you have no opinion about whether its beneficial to the child to have a legal parent-child relationship with
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 both parents in that family? A I dont know the legalities of these things in terms
73
of whose accorded legal status when the mother and father are already married and they go get assisted reproductive technology, a donor insemination, I dont purport to know at all about how the legal parental rights work in that case. I mean, as I said before, I think its less optimal to get donor inseminated because then you are giving -taking in a diminished kinship, right, youre taking on that rather than working with parents to -- even by ART to retain the genetic connection between mother, father and child. Thats optimal. Q So going back to the question for heterosexual couples
who are infertile and the way they have a child is to get sperm from a sperm bank do you have an opinion about whether the non-biological father in that family should be recognized as the legal father to the child born? A Ive never fashioned an opinion on that. I presume
they are recognized, but I dont -- Im not an expert in ART or adoption law. Q A Q A So you have no opinion. Generally speaking, no. Okay. Now -My only opinion is that states have interest in
reducing diminished kinship, and seeking to heighten the
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 link mom, dad and child biologically as well as socially. Q But you understand that there are families wheres
74
thats not the case. A Q I understand that. And you have no opinion about whether legal ties
should be established with both parents -MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. This has been asked several times. THE COURT: Ill sustain the objection. BY MS. COOPER: Q Moving on, switching gears, your position in favor of
limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is not based solely on the scientific research related to child outcomes or couple stability; is it? A Q Correct. Youve never been a fan of same sex marriage; isnt
that right? A Q Correct. And you were not a fan of same sex marriage before you
even started your work on the NFSS; is that right? A Q Correct. And thats because in your view marriage in much of
human history has privileged expectation of permanency, fidelity, and generally the anticipation of children and you believe that doesnt comport with same sex marriage; is
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that right? A Q Yes. And you also agree as a matter of religious
75
affiliation that sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman are wrong; is that right? A Q Can you state that last part again? Sure. That you also agree as a matter of our religious
affiliation that sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman are wrong? A Q A Yes. Okay. That doesnt really shape how I go about doing my
social science, but I do hold that to be true. MS. COOPER: Non-responsive, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MS. COOPER: Q This is marked for identification -- I believe were
at Exhibit 59, another document. Professor Regnerus, this document marked for identification as Exhibit 59, is that an alumni profile from your alma mater? A Q A It is. An alumni profile about you. It is. Do you know when that was published?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes. Okay. If you go onto the next paragraph, it says, Q
76
I cant answer that, but you recognize this an alumni
profile. A Q Yes, its not recent. Okay. I want to read some quotes attributable you in
this profile. A Q Sure. And youll scroll down to -- six paragraphs down and
read along with me. As Christians our lives should reflect our relationship with God and our desire to glorify him. Regnerus says, Ive noticed that some Christian professors see a disconnect between their faith and their profession. I believe that if your faith matters it should inform what you teach and what you research. First of all, did I read that correctly?
Ive had students here tell me that Im the only Christian professor theyve had. Im not approved to share the Gospel, but I dont necessarily hide my beliefs either. When I teach, I dont seek to break down or build any particular faith, but my world view colors what I do in the classroom. I want to skip down to a quote, again, in the
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 last paragraph of the page,
77
Thats what I want my students to recognize the connection between my faith and my work. If we could stop there and I just want to ask you, is it right that your faith shapes your interest in researching sexual decision-making family and relationships? A Yeah, its a source of interest, although, the genesis
of my interest in sexual behavior came from a chapter in a book I was writing when the chapter got really long and very interesting. Prior to that I hadnt been all that interested in studying sexual decision-making. Q But you have said that your faith shapes your interest
in those topics? A Yeah, a lot of people when they get interested in
research topics it has some sort of personal connection to them. Q A I want to -This is fairly an old document though. It doesnt
really -- Ive changed a little bit over ten plus years. Im probably not as -- Im not as open about my faith as I might have once been. Q Okay. Now, the idea for the NFSS Study emerged from a
series of conversations you had with various people about what research projects could be done. I think you touched
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on that yesterday; is that right? A Q A Q A Q Right. Those people included Luis Tellez? Yes. He was the President of the Witherspoon Institute? Yes. And you presume that the Witherspoon Institute is
78
against marriage for same sex couples? A Q I presume so. Tellez is also involved with the National Organization
for Marriage? A I have heard that. I have never -- Im not familiar
with all the connections, but he has an affiliation of some sort, yeah. Q Now, thats an organization that advocates for
limiting marriage to opposite sex couples? A Q They do. One of the people involved in these conversations that
you refer to about research possibilities was Maggie Gallagher; is that right? A Q Correct. Maggie Gallagher is a prominent advocate against
marriage for same sex couples; is that right? A Q Correct. Now you attended a meeting in Washington, D.C., a grop
12-10285
79
of people including Luis Tellez from Witherspoon and Maggie Gallagher among others; is that right? A Q Right. And the purpose of that meeting was to discuss or to
think about study possibilities in the area of marriage and relationships? A Generally speaking what kind of research questions are
-- are good to be asked and answered in the broader domain. I think that was -- do you have a date on that? Q A If you remember -I think in the deposition we said in the fall of 2009,
I think. Q By the way was that the Heritage Foundation, that
meeting? A Q A Q I dont think it was. Where was it? Some hotel. Hotel, okay. Now, the Witherspoon Institute paid the expenses of the meeting attendees of that D.C. meeting that you attended? A Q I believe so. Ultimately you submitted a proposal to Witherspoon to
fund the NFSS Study. A Right.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Okay. A Q Q A Q A Q Okay. They accepted it? They did. And they funded the study. They did. Okay. Id like to mark again for identification
80
Exhibit 60. Have you had a change to take a look? Could you give me a minute? Sure. MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, I just want to make clear youre not moving to admit? MS. COOPER: No. MS. HEYSE: Okay. Thank you.
BY MS. COOPER: Q So this document thats been marked as Exhibit 60 for
identification is this an email in which Brad Wilcox is responding to some questions you wrote him on September 21s, 2010 about the NFSS Study? A Right. So this would be roughly -- yeah. Several
months before we fashioned the first meeting of people in Austin. Q And just to be clear, Wilcox hes the person who
introduced you to Luis Tellez of Witherspoon; is that right?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes. Now the Luis that refers to Luis Tellez of A Q A Q A Q Right, roughly a year before that or something. Okay. I think you need to speak up just a bit. Im sorry. I saw people leaning. Some share of time before that, roughly a year. Okay. I want to call your attention to the bottom
81
paragraph. And, again, just before I read it, this is an email you wrote to Brad Wilcox, right, September 21st, 2010? A Q Yes. Okay. Bottom paragraph says, I would like at some point to get more feedback from Luis and Maggie about the boundaries around this project, not just costs but also their optimal time lines (for the coalition meeting, the data collection, et.) And their hopes for what emerges from this project including the early report we discussed in D.C. Feel free to forward this to them. Did I read that right?
Witherspoon? A Q Right. And Maggie is Maggie Gallagher, the advocate against
same sex marriage?
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I presume so. Okay. I dont believe I ever -- I dont believe I ever got
82
feedback after that. Q A Q Im just asking whether you wrote this. Yes. Okay. And these are the same individuals, Luis Tellex
and Maggie Gallagher who were among others at the meeting in Washington, D.C. you mentioned where you talked about ideas for studies? A Q Right. Okay. So you wanted to know what hopes Luis Tellez and
Maggie Gallagher had for your research project? A I wanted to know what they -- when they anticipated
the results from this, and what it -- what they thought it would like because we hadnt even met yet in January of 2011, to start hammering out how are we going to sample people, etc. I was aware of, you know, what Witherspoon thought about same sex marriage, but I was a skeptic at any data analysis project we took on could tackle what they might expect. So I wanted to know like if they had false expectations for what this is capable is doing. It was really intended to be a -- its an intellectual question we were answering. I think they would be surprised if -- I
12-10285
83
didnt know if they would expect that it could answer a lot more questions than I had a feeling it could. Q At this point had Witherspoon already agreed to fund
your study? A I dont honestly know. Im -- I think the formal
funding came later. I dont recall. Q Will it help you refresh your recollection if you
looked to whats numbered as point one, towards the top of the mail? A I think they probably had given me a voice go ahead,
but we hadnt gotten cost estimates yet or anything like that. I mention it at the bottom that, you know, costs. I didnt know how much it was going to cost and how much they thought they were capable of funding. Q In point one, youre asking we want to run this
project through UTs PRC. Im presuming 10 percent overhead is acceptable to Witherspoon. Youre asking about details of costs and funding; right? A Q Right. Okay. Now in the paragraph at the bottom we were
looking at a moment ago, you reference the coalition meeting. What coalition meeting were you referring to? A The only coalition meeting I can recall is -- was in
the fall of 2009, the one I mentioned at the hotel. But I dont know about -- Im not sure what coalition meeting
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this referring to. I honestly dont. Q A You dont know what you meant when you wrote that?
84
I dont. Unless it means -- its probably a reference
to the pooling together of consultants and getting together which we did in January of 2011. Thats my best guess. Q A Consultants -I dont know what coalition meant to me at the time
here. We did meet, a body of consultants in January of 2011 to hammer out like how were going to do this study. Q A Q And you might -It might have been that, Im not sure. You would have called the consultants on your study a
coalition? A Q A Q A Q A coalition of consultants, yeah, I dont know. Okay. That would have made sense. Theres not a question pending. Okay. Im going to mark for identification Exhibit 61. So whats been marked as Exhibit 61 is this an email you received from Luis Tellez of the Witherspoon Institute? A Q On the bottom Im sorry, yes. Below the line there are two emails on
this page. Thanks for clarifying. The bottom email.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 2010? A Q Right. Okay. Now, in the body of it, are you talking about Yes, I believe so. And its dated September -- sorry. September 22nd,
85
the NFSS Study they were funding? A Yeah. I mean, it didnt have a name yet. I dont think
it had a name. It was an idea at the time. The project that was going to get rolling starting in January of 2011. Q Okay. Now -- lets see. If you look he says, Move on it. Dont dilly dally etc. It would be great to have this before a major decision of the Supreme Court; is that right? A Right, and before that he said dont get hung up with
deadlines. Do it as right and best and think how you would want it done which is always what I did. Q I think you mentioned yesterday that you approached
Jim Wright at The Journal Social Science Research and asked him if he would consider reviewing your manuscript of the NFSS Study and if he be speedy about it? A Right, in part because I had a report that I intended
to write. I had my own internal deadlines around it. It just kept getting shifted in the future and I wanted to get back to my other research projects. Q So you were so eager to have this published speedy
12-10285
86
that you submitted the manuscript to the Journal before the data collection was completed; isnt that right? A Ninety-eight percent completed basically and the
findings were fairly robust. I mentioned when -- I sent Paul Amato a copy of the manuscript after I submitted it, and said, I didnt think it was a big deal, put it in the cue at the social science research. We were waiting on data trickling in from Knowledge Networks, just a handful of cases. If Social Science Research was going to reject it then I wanted to know that sooner rather than later. Q Because you had an internal deadline in your head;
right? A Right, because I inserted this study -- before our
report I was intending to write which I never did write. Q Okay. So the study is published in July, 2012, and
online in June of that year; is that right? A Q June 12 I think or 11. So this was before the Windsor and Perry cases were
heard in the U.S. Supreme Court? A Q A Q A Q I dont know the time tables of all that stuff. But you were able cite to the study -Right. -- in the amicus brief that you wrote -I dont remember -Let me finish the question.
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Let her finish the question. MS. COOPER: Its confusing for the reporter. BY MS. COOPER: Q Okay. So you were able to cite and discuss the study
87
in the amicus brief that you wrote to the Supreme Court in Windsor and Perry in opposition to same sex marriage; is that right? A True. It was a component of the amicus brief.
There were more components to it than just this. Q A day or two before the NFSS Study was to be published
by the Journal, you gave a presentation at the Heritage Foundation about the findings of that study; is that right? A Q Yes, maybe a day before that or something like that. Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank in
Washington? A Q Right. By the way, were they part of -- does that help
refresh your recollection about the coalition you referenced earlier? A I dont believe that was the coalition I referring to.
That was -- I gave a talk I think Luis probably invited me to do. I dont know for sure, I dont recall. But that would not have been on my radar back in 2010. That was not the coalition meeting. It was heres a study coming out, would you like to give a talk at Heritage about it and I
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said fine. Q
88
So you gave that talk a day or so, a day or two before
the study was published, and Heritage gave you immediate training document suggesting talking points for you to use when talking about the study? A They gave it to me or sent it to me and I largely
ignored it. Q Ive marked for identification Exhibit 62. MS. HEYSE: Your Honor, Im going to object on a line of questions. Doctor Regnerus just -- if thats what she intends to do, Dr. Regnerus just testified that he largely ignored this document. THE COURT: You may renew your objection. I havent her question yet so its hard for me to rule at this point. MS. COOPER: I will just clarify, he largely ignored it, doesnt seem to take it off the table. BY MS. COOPER: Q I want to just first ask you is this the -- this
document has a few pages, four pages, and I want to focus on the first two pages of the document. Is that the media training document provided to you by Heritage? A I presume so, but as I said I dont believe I used it.
It was recovered in some Freedom of Information Act request out of some computer file of mine, but it was filed away
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and -- its their words, not mine. Q If you look down on paragraph -- six paragraphs down
89
one of the key points to make that they provided for you is, For many years -MS. HEYSE: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MS. HEYSE: Thank you. THE COURT: You cant read from it. I think you need a little more foundation in terms of the document. BY MS. COOPER: Q I understood, Professor Regnerus, you say you largely
ignored it. I didnt understand you to be saying you did not read it, you did not consider it at all. A Came over email because thats where it was had. I
filed it in some folder that eventually got discovered and -- I mean, its their words, not mine. Q A Q A Q So youre saying you never read it? I have no recollection if I read it or not. Okay. Its almost two years ago, a year and a half ago. Now, apart from your interactions with Luis Tellez of
Witherspoon regarding the meeting in D.C. that you discussed and the funding of your NFSS Study, you mentioned yesterday that you also worked with him to create an
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good time. organization called the Austin Institute; is that right? A Yes.
90
THE COURT: Excuse, Im sure you have some more to go. We have to switch court reporters. Thats why we take a break at 11:00. Thats how they have their thing. Is that okay? MS. COOPER: Of course. THE COURT: I mean, do you want to finish real quick? I dont know how much you have. MS. COOPER: If you need to take a break, lets take a break. THE COURT: We dont need to, but I think its a
Okay. Well take 15 minutes, and well reconvene at a quarter after. (Court recessed, 11:00 a.m.) -- -- --
12-10285
BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 March 4th, 2014 12-10285 DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL. S:/ JOAN L. MORGAN, CSR Official Court Reporter Detroit, Michigan 48226 I, JOAN L. MORGAN, Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of CERTIFICATE
91
Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were had in the within entitled and number cause of the date hereinbefore set forth, and I do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my direction.

MichgTrialTranscriptsDay 6 Part 1 of 3 Regnerus

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MichgTrialTranscriptsDay 6 Part 1 of 3 Regnerus

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER, ET. AL.

For the Defendants: Richard Snyder, Bill Schuette, Lisa Brown

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: CROSS-EXAMINATION

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q

And you consider Michael Rosenfeld to be well-regarded

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

And youre aware that research on children of same sex

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q

That sample wasnt big enough to give you statistical

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

those outcomes are. Q So by my math to get 50 if your 15,000 people yielded

surveying or screening 15,000 people?

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

consistently confirm that children of low income couples

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BY MS. COOPER: Q Confirming the equally good outcomes of children of

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A

Typically insofar as its associated with social class

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q

But in your view because there are, quote, outstanding

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

And you recognize that excluding same sex couples from

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

mother and her partner -Q So thats yes.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

lasted. Q But they never lived in an household where there was

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Okay.

That was not the criteria by which -- the criteria by

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

What I mean by the statement is I had no idea what the

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 yesterday. Q

But I think you also mentioned the comparison to step

about it. Q Okay. Now, switching gears a little bit. I want to

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

BENCH TRIAL - VOLUME 6 - PART A TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes.

So that means they were born from 1972, to 1993; that

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

If you would turn to page 756, and if you look with me

And I followed it up with sort of -- we dont know how

your NFSS Study about outcomes for children in planned

DEBOER, ET. AL. V SNYDER, ET. AL.

by the journal. Q Authorized by the journal, okay. And you expressed