This Is Getting Old

We're used to the anti-gay right misrepresenting scientific studies to bolster their thin little arguments against same-sex marriage, but this has to mark an extreme departure from reality, even for them. Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins are riffing on a study from Harvard that -- you guessed it -- studies the impact of single-parent families on communities:

SPRIGG: If a child grows up in a community with married households, that child will do better than a child raised in a community where there are many single-parent households. And this is exactly what I’ve been saying about the marriage issue and so forth: if you redefine marriage, it’s not going to affect just those couples. It’s going to affect the whole community by setting an example.

Emphasis mine -- that's where Sprigg departs the known world and heads right into his own turgid little fantasies. And then Perkins:

PERKINS: That’s very interesting Peter because… that study then answers that question of, “How does my same-sex marriage affect yours?” It may not affect my marriage, but it affects my children because it has an impact upon marriage across the board.

If you look at the study, it's glaringly obvious that it doesn't deal in any way with same-sex marriage. You almost have to admire Perkins -- smarmy as he is, he's a past master at bait and switch. This is just another example of the false "logic" of equating single-parent households with same-sex households -- I guess because "mother and father." It's gotten rather pathetic, not to mention shopworn -- it's one that Perkins inherited from James Dobson. The article at Right Wing Watch deals with that argument:

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.

As to how that relates to the Perkins/Sprigg, et al. argument -- well, can you say "bullshit"? Of course, working from the real information and following their own logic, what you come up with is that if same-sex couples are in legally recognized marriages, the impact on the community is going to be positive.

There's audio at the link, if you want to verify the quotes. And has anyone noticed how more and more, Perkins and his ilk are carrying their message to "house organs" (yes, this is from an FRC radio show) and skipping the wider media? Any guesses on why? Could it be that people have started calling them out on the lies? Ya think?