Senator Franken shames homophobic imbecile

Gulliver

I also gotta say that I liked how Franken handled it. He didn’t get incensed. He didn’t self-righteously beat the moron over his empty head with it. He just casually popped the guyâ€™s hot air balloon and let him flounder. Franken takes the moral high road and Minnery looks the fool he is.

I donâ€™t agree with Franken on a lot of things â€“ he is a politician, after all â€“ but I can still appreciate it when he shoots down a wider-brimmed asshat.

2k

Bloody petards!

cniebla

It says: TWO PARENTS. This is very important. Every study I find gets to the same conclusion: ONE PARENT does not suffice. It takes two (at least!). Gender? that’s not the question. Gender does not matter at all.

Anonymous

You forgot Poland.

Diet Mr Pibb

I just love that Sen. Franken, with all his years’ experience as a comedian.. waited for the laugh.

That’s something that a trained, expert performer. And he did it gracefully, because he knew that pausing there would let it sink in that he’s about to call this guy out on something.

jeligula

So, am I to take it that homophobic is now synonymous with imbecilic? If the homophobe in question (not this guy) is neither silly nor stupid nor even slightly mentally retarded, then the definition does not fit. There are quite a few out there who are quite intelligent and not stupid or silly in the least. If they never voice their opinions on the subject, you would never have a reason to label them imbecilic, since it is their view on that one subject that you are labeling them with. This is one of those cases where feelings take the place of accuracy, just as they did in the video for both of the subjects.

@ TheViolentVicar: Seeing as how people of lower education and socio-economic status are out-breeding the more intelligent in our society, your ironic statement makes some sense. Please refer to the Mike Judge film “Idiocracy” which took data from C.M. Kornbluth’s stories “The Marching Morons” and to a lesser extent, “Shark Ship”. Intelligence is fated to be bred out of the human race.

No, I am not a homophobe, I just like to argue.

Mark Frauenfelder

“So, am I to take it that homophobic is now synonymous with imbecilic?”

Nope. The gent is a homophobe and an imbecile. He is homophobic because he doesn’t want gay people to have the same rights as straight people. He is an imbecile because he doesn’t understand what this study is about.
- purple-stater
  
  [quote] Nope. The gent is a homophobe and an imbecile. He is homophobic because he doesn’t want gay people to have the same rights as straight people. He is an imbecile because he doesn’t understand what this study is about.[/quote]
  
  Actually, by not wanting gay couples to have the same rights, he’s a bigot. A homophobe is somebody with an irrational fear of homosexuals. Very different things.
  
  An imbecile is an individual with some level of mental retardation. If one does not understand something, that merely makes them ignorant.

Chris Anthony

@pauldavis, there’s a fine point here that a non-analyst might not pick up: the researchers in this case almost certainly DID test same-sex and opposite-sex marriages separately and found similar results, and thus felt confident grouping them together for the purposes of the analysis. If the groups had had different results, combining them for the final analysis would have introduced undesirable skew in the final results.

@jeligula, I continue to be astonished by the number of people who thought “Idiocracy” was a documentary and not a work of fiction.

Anonymous

And of course two family households are at least partially self selected to be reasonably happy ones. As well as ones where neither parent is in jail.

knoxblox

I also think the reason so many people don’t like Al Franken is because they know he’s not too lazy to do some homework.

Shithead

While I do agree with what Mr. Franken has to say, I have to point out, that specifically states that the “nuclear family” is defined in the study, as one where the parents are specifically “married”, without knowing which time period it was conducted, it is not unreasonable to assume that if it was conducted 3 or 4 years ago, the pool of married homosexuals was statistically smaller (Since few states recognized marriage at the time). Since it was a government study, I also think it is reasonable to assume that it did not include common law marriage (of any orientation), or marriages not recognized by the same government conducting the study.

Damian expressed my thoughts exactly.

Shotaro

The point, surely, should be that if children do better if their parents are married, that forbidding gay marriage is immoral because it removes the benefits of the institution from the children of gay couples?

Anonymous

Ignorant ding-dongs who have never left Colorado Springs for any reason except when they think God itself is personally telling them to do so should NOT tangle with a former SNL writer and NYC survivor. The religion-for-profit weasels lose every time they tangle with someone who bothered to show up for science class once or twice.

RibosomeMatt

Since the sample did include some gay-led families, perhaps it could be said that the study suggests that preventing the parents from marrying could be detrimental to the children.

That is, if you wanted to base whether to legalize gay marriage on the basis of “What about the children?”. If that’s the case, why are none of these folks trying to pass laws preventing child abusers and people guilty of assault from marrying?

catgrin

I appreciate your sentiment, but from what I understand, the subject of parental sexuality is not discussed by the author. All that she says is that homosexuality did not exclude participation in the study, and that’s the point that Sen. Franken is making.

The study only discusses whether stable two parent nuclear families provide better health care situations than other types of families (for example single parent or foster homes, which may have two parents). The consideration of the sex of the parents was not a part of the study at all, and so can not be referenced by anyone using the study as a source of information.

I do agree with the hypocrisy that both you and TheViolentVicar are commenting on: “What about the children?” is an incredibly weak argument in the arsenal against same-sex marriage. Not only does it require that you attend to all forms of abuse against children (not just this one perceived abuse), but also when you consider the number of studies that have shown that same sex two-parent households are stable and loving, the argument crumbles. Unfortunately, for some (ahem, dogmatic) reason – lawmakers keep fighting the data.

While the lawmakers argue, the majority of doctors agree. In 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 60,000 members voted to take a positive stance on same-sex marriage http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341 In 2004, ProFamily Pediatricians was organized as a political group to try to help defend same sex partners and their rights as parents. https://www.profamilypediatricians.org/history.html There are some pediatricians who disagree, for example The American College of Pediatricians is a political group with a distinctly conservative bent, and they are definitely not pro same-sex marriage http://www.acpeds.org/

Anonymous

Let me be the first to say:

AL FRANKEN FOR PRESIDENT!

I’d rather have him than ANY of the current crop of lying scumbags who are getting ready to run, and that includes Obama (who I voted for).

Tuff Luke

BLAM.

that was awesome

aaronlyon

I have very few heroes on the political stage, and Senator Franken is at the top of the list. More power, Mr. Franken!

johnnyuber

If only we all had that type of representation …

mccrum

Yeah, when he said “I read the study” I thought “Does my Senator ever read studies?”

CSMcDonald

Pity he’s squarely in the pocket of the MPAA and such when it comes to overbearing IP issues such as the PROTECT IP act.

babVU98i

Well no surprise. His unborn grandchildren will need those Saturday night live residuals or risk having to *work*! Really, his industry history and ongoing income stream should bar him from the IP debate due to conflict of interest.

But HOORAY for him in this clip. Awesome!

emmdeeaych

do not taunt happy fun ball

Anonymous

Tom never read this study, I take it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

bklynchris

Thank you for this as it was too late for me to figure out what search words would have succinctly given me the accurate hit. I was hoping he would cite this study but would have been of topic, I guess.

Franken is indeed impressive.

Jer

I object to the headline of this post.

It assumes facts not in evidence. First you have to establish that a Focus on the Family hack can actually feel “shame”, which I doubt.

phillamb168

His voice is totally channeling Tom Bodett there.

mn_camera

That’s (one of) my Senator(s)!

Damian

While I do agree with what Mr. Franken has to say, I have to point out, that specifically states that the “nuclear family” is defined in the study, as one where the parents are specifically “married”, without knowing which time period it was conducted, it is not unreasonable to assume that if it was conducted 3 or 4 years ago, the pool of married homosexuals was statistically smaller (Since few states recognized marriage at the time). Since it was a government study, I also think it is reasonable to assume that it did not include common law marriage (of any orientation), or marriages not recognized by the same government conducting the study.

Al Franken wins the point, both logically and rhetorically, but I don’t think he is entirely correct in his reading of that study.

Am I wrong?

I think the more salient point is what the study may have to say about how it defines “marriage” and what other factors seem to be significant.

I mean, we want him to win right? So do we excuse the fallacy because it’s on our side? This is something either side of a debate will so often do, and something that gets me so angry when someone on the “other side” does it.

Anonymous

Flag on the play! Good Call. Logical Fallacy
Sen. Franken forces the play because the parents’ gender was not stated either way.
Notice above within the quotes but never stated is, “regardless of the parents’ gender.”
Anonymous

Damien, yes, you’re wrong. He specifically mentions that the study was conducted in 2010.
Karl Stevens

No, you’re not wrong. The study quoted was for the years 2001 through 2007. To my knowledge, Massachusetts was the only state during that period to legalize gay marriage, and from a federal standoint, DOMA says that marriage is between one man and one woman.

So, for Franken to be technically correct, the report would need to specify whether it was the state or federal definition of marriage, and if it was state definition, whether it included anyone from Mass.

Honestly though, it’s really sad that in this day and age, homosexuals are still being repressed like this.
Anonymous

I understand your point.

However, at least part of Sen. Franken’s point was that this homophob was presenting the study as if it was conclusive evidence that hetero marriages lead to all sorts of benefits and gay marriages would lead to all sorts of harm. When in fact the study says nothing of the sort. It was the dishonesty in the presentation of the study on the homophob’s part that the Senator was pointing out.

At best gay marriage wasn’t even considered in the study so there is no way it should be used to argue against gay marriage.

Had the study included specifically looking at same sex households (it look at like 6 or 7 different types of households, married couple headed families just being one of them) and still determined that married couple headed families were far and away the best then the homophobe could use it as he presented it. Otherwise the homophobe was being dishonest in using it for his argument and as Sen. Franken said, there is no reason to believe anything he presents when he clearly misrepresented this important part of his case.
Snig

I see your point, but Franken is more right than wrong. Minnery is trying to use the study to state that opposite sex marriage is better than same sex marriage. He is the one who cited the study. The study does not address that issue, meaning he is incorrect to bring it up. It is deliberately not comparing straight vs. gay. As a second issue, Franken points out that the study could be used to show the opposite of Minnery’s intent, since the side that did better (nuclear families), likely included a few token gay families. Since this was not examined directly, and the amount of married families would be dilute positive or negative, this is a tenuous conclusion.

pauldavis

Franken is one of my heroes, but based solely on what he actually read there, this isn’t really a slam dunk (which it ideally should be).

the definition of a nuclear family that he cites from the HHS is “1 or more children living with 2 parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family”.

the study was published in December 2010. given the shameful lack of ability of same sex couples to marry in most places in the US at that time (not so different from the situation right now), it doesn’t seem unreasonable to conclude that given the definition’s inclusion of the term “married to one another” pretty much ensures that the families studied are mixed gender.

i happen to agree with franken’s inference that the study is at least as supportive of the notion that “a loving, bonded, stable and secure family is good for kids” as the one that mixed gender parenting is what matters. but it doesn’t seem clear to me that the study supports either position based on the part that franken read out (which was a tiny, tiny part of it).

gwit

You can also read it this way: children would be better off having a same sex couple as parents if the same sex couple were allowed to be married and adopt (or be a biological parent) of the children.

xochilynn

I object to the headline of this post because of the use of the word embecile. I agree with it, but it’s inflammatory to people who might not agree. Senator Al Franken demonstrates a great deal of power with his clear and deliberate communication. We need this power to defeat oppressive forces. I’d like to learn how to do it!

Anonymous

The study essentially has married parents on one side and everything else on the other. The Focus on the Family dude is technically more correct than Senator Franken.

The sample size of actual married homosexual couples available to participate in the study because of recent and current laws would put the majority of homosexual couples into the “other category”

The unanswered question is whether it is the marriage or the gender pairing that makes a significant difference.

On another note, allowing homosexual couples to marry should not logically increase the number of homosexual couples.

Ugly Canuck

“….at a time when marriage has lost most of its meaning, it’s not so strange to consider reinventing it. At one point, marriage was merely about a father trading his “property” (i.e. his daughter) in exchange for a bride price from the groom’s family. Marriage has changed before and it will change again.”

Perhaps you argument would be strengthened – and perhaps it wouldn’t – if one takes a much closer look at what marriage actually used to mean, say in the 18th century, for the people of that time, in their own words:

http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/wedding_bride/tofc.html

DoctressJulia

Yup. It was- and still is- a property contract.
- catgrin
  
  Legally speaking, marriage is just a special form of property contract that provides extended legal rights to the partners making them in effect, a family member. Excluding one group from the ability to make that contract, based on sex alone, is against our Constitution. While individual churches may reserve the right to not perform a ceremony as their form of religion does not recognize homosexuality as a valid lifestyle (they have the right to set their standards), I find it offensive that our government continues to exclude the rights of an entire class of people, based solely on their bedroom choices.
  
  The fight to keep same-sex marriage illegal is a blatant effort to prevent homosexual couples from having equal rights. In a time where hetero couples are flocking to doctors for assistance with pregnancy, many states won’t allow homosexuals to adopt as a couple or even seek adoption to gain joint custody of a partner’s child after a successful in-vitro birth. Partners are kept out of hospital rooms after emergencies occur, and paperwork couples set up to protect them in case of emergency sometimes fails.
  
  This behavior is shameful.
  - Teller
    
    “Excluding one group from the ability to make that contract, based on sex alone, is against our Constitution.”
    
    I’ve wondered why, if DOMA has been unconstitutional since Bill Clinton – why hasn’t SCOTUS reviewed it? Now I know:
    
    “A Supreme Court case overturning DOMA could change the standard of judicial review applied to laws regarding sexual orientation. Until now, the Supreme Court hasnâ€™t recognized classifications based on sexual orientation as deserving of heightened judicial scrutiny.”
    
    Obama’s recent decision not to have the DOJ defend DOMA may finally force SCOTUS to act.
    - catgrin
      
      Today officially begins the final 60 day countdown for the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
      
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/military-certifies-repeal-of-dont-ask-policy/2011/07/22/gIQAye15TI_story.html
      
      It does seem that real progress is being made in favor of gay rights, and with the military now stating openly that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, the fight on home front may finally be successful. While I would prefer another group to be the ones reviewing, SCOTUS may find it impossible to ignore the call of the public.

StAlfongzo

So awesome!

Bam! he got served!

Gulliver

In all fairness, I’m not really sure Tom Minnery can read.

Anonymous

While it is true that the reference to “nuclear families” (I.e., married and related to or adoptive parents of the children) in the study logically refers to heterosexual couples, given that few gay couples could marry, Franken’s inference that the study doesn’t say what Minnery THINKS it says is absolutely correct.

It is correct because Minnery is using the study to prove that children raised by homosexual couples do not fare as well as those raised by heterosexual married couples.

The only way Minnery could correctly derive that as an inference would be if the study compared children from MARRIED heterosexual couples to MARRIED homosexual couples.

Minnery’s inference is completely off base. You cannot draw his conclusion from the data as presented in the study.

Anonymous

The comments by Damian and pauldavis are correct. The study says that children in households where the parents are married do better and does not exclude same sex parents. However, as pointed out by the people I cited, the study would have included precious few same sex marriages, simply because they have not been allowed and in any case are unlikely to comprise a large fraction of marriages when the dust settles. It would take a separate sample to settle the issue. Personally, I believe that any married couple or at least a couple with a permanent commitment are likely to provide a better environment for kids than a one person household, but the data aren’t there.

judonerd

Sounds convincing until you realize that the definition doesn’t address gender at all, and the study may or may not have even included same-sex couples.

The homophobe said “well, this must mean mixed-gender couples.”
The comedian said “well, you could read it another way.”

It’s also a little odd that Franken took such a tenuous little detail like that and used it as evidence that the homophobe’s entire testimony was flawed.

The real answers should be coming from studies designed to look at same-sex couples and their children. Inferring conclusions based on this particular study is a waste of time for everyone.

DoctressJulia

See, that’s the thing: It doesn’t matter the gender of the parents. It just matters that there are two of them and that they are committed to stay together and raise their children. Why do same-sex parents need a study ‘designed’ for only them?

What matters is that they are loved and cared for. And, this reminded me of this recent study, related to lesbian households with children:

http://feministing.com/2010/11/11/new-study-lesbian-households-produce-a-child-abuse-rate-of-0/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

And, as for this video, and Franken (who is kinda cute… :3)? Oh, SNAP. That’s it.
Lumpmoose

Minnery used the study to prove that kids raised by a mother and father turned out better “than children in any other family form.” Franken isn’t extending the study to say the same-sex parents raise good kids. He’s merely pointing out that Minneryâ€™s point is flawed because the study doesn’t specify gender. Therefore it’s misleading to use the study to say straight parents are better than gay parents. That’s Franken’s point: the study simply doesn’t address gender at all and therefore should not have been used.

Franken is not saying the study says something about gay parents. On the contrary, he’s saying the study says nothing about gay parents because gender is not specified nor tested.
Mark Frauenfelder

The study did not compare same-sex couples with hetero couples, but that didn’t stop the homophobic imbecile from pretending that it did.

Anonymous

It’s really not a matter of if the study counted same sex marriages or not. His point is that it doesn’t establish a negative finding about gay and lesbian parents.

ikegently

well, one of the authors of the study said that Franken was correct and that the study did not exclude homosexual couples.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A2DA1C32-D634-418A-A47B-6672FA1779AD

serfingusa

Agree with pauldavis and Damian

While I’m confident the senator’s conclusion is right, the definition listed in the study doesn’t clearly vindicate his position (or condemn his opponents). I think flaunting (obviously) imperfect arguments like this one actually do more harm than good. We cannot succumb to the same low level of scrutiny as the opposition.

Gulliver

Anon #33 and TheViolentVicar are spot on. The optimal parenting arrangement had zero bearing on the just right of consenting adults to enter into contracts with one another. Otherwise the social conservatives would be pounding the pavement for a law outlawing unwed mothers from carrying a child to term when in fact they do the opposite.

While I’m glad Franken exposed Minneryâ€™s reading incomprehension – and, as Lumpmoose pointed out, that’s exactly what he did – the parental issue is a diversion. This is about the State trying to interfere in the personal liberties of consenting citizens. So thank you, Franken, but Frankly, dear, I don’t give a damn!

Antinous / Moderator

The goal of marriage has, up until recently, been about creating stable families and homes.

Even that’s a fantasy narrative. For some centuries, it was pretty normal for the husband to be on a ship, in the army, off at a mine or otherwise separated from his family for months or years at a time. Family togetherness was far from a universal norm.

purple-stater

The full family together at home as been the norm throughout history. Yes, having the husband away from home the majority of the time via military or naval service of some sort, or simply having employment an inconvenient distance from home, has been a common occurrence but those people have always been a very small portion of the general populace.
- catgrin
  
  I wish you have been able to let my grandmother know your feelings directly.
  
  If 2% of the U.S. population have or are actively serving, this is what they compare to:
  Teachers = 2% (and that’s ALL teachers, all grades)
  Doctors = .29%
  Lawyers = .36%
  (various sources, just google it)
  
  So. I guess the military isn’t really such a “small” portion of our country. Just putting things in perspective.
  
  Back to grandmom – While my grandfather was at sea serving as a navy doctor (I barely met him as a child, and cherish those memories) my grandmother raised eight children, the oldest born in 1941, and worked as a doctor herself (she was an early graduate of the USC College of Medicine). It was with the help of my great-grandmother and the neighborhood women that she was able to get through the rough spots.
  
  She may be a special example, but it doesn’t take serving in the military to keep a family apart.
  
  In today’s economic climate, a young couple may be forced to work opposite shifts in order to provide rent and childcare. (I’ve known several people who’ve done so.) During the week, they may see each other only in passing. To say they are “together at home” is a fallacy because the benefits of dual parenting (sit-down dinners, open communication, group play, cooperative discipline, etc.) are lost when both parents cannot both be at home. In California at least, commuters are often expected to work full days and then still have an hour or longer to drive or ride before they get home, and those commuters are not “a very small portion of the populace.”
  
  Antinous wrote: “History is largely composed of men pining for home and families waiting for their husband and father’s return.” Want a fictional, but appropriate, example? Read Little Women, and rediscover the Christmas they spent waiting for their father, the chaplain during the Civil War.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  …those people have always been a very small portion of the general populace.
  
  Um, no. Business was done in sailing ships, and whaling ships, and slave ships, for centuries. All of which take months or years to complete a job. European men went to the New World or to India/Africa/etc to make their fortunes (or work for the men who were making fortunes) and left their families at home unless they were wealthy enough to bring them along. There were decades of war throughout Europe, in which large numbers of men were off on campaign for months or years. Even businessmen and gentlemen of leisure spent time in the city while their families were in the country. History is largely composed of men pining for home and families waiting for their husband and father’s return.

chgoliz

All of the positive outcomes listed in the report could be explained by a child not having to experience bigotry and hostility at school and in public for their non-normative family structure.

In fact, it’s quite impressive that children of gay parents aren’t more negatively affected than they are. Perhaps gay parenting is superior, and thus better able than straight parenting to offset the many disadvantages of prejudice? /snark

But seriously, Anonymous at #7 is correct: studies are showing that children raised in 2-mother homes do much better than children raised in 1-mother, 1-father homes.

Anonymous

Snap! Don’t screw with a guy who used to write comedy.

Frankly Mr Franken…

PMcGorrill

@ pauldavis, Damian, judonerd, serfingusa
While there may have only been heterosexual marriages included in the study, it is notable that the authors did not cite being raised by heterosexual parents as an important factor in the well being of children. It is notable because Tom Minnery is trying to use the study to argue that heterosexual marriages are superior to homosexual marriages, but the study did not compare those two types of families. So, the study may not have included gay married parents, and that is exactly why it is irrelevant in this debate.

emmdeeaych

If you don;t like Porche’s, don’t shop for or drive one
If you don’t like apples, don’t gather recipes or eat one
If you don;t like FOX, don’t watch it or buy stock
If you don’t like homosexuals, don’t spend your time on them.

But if you actually do like homosexuals, just admit it already.

Denial is a terrible place to be,

cinemajay

Love Al, he’s the best.

Bubba

“It doesn’t”

Game

Set

Match

Concise, eloquent and ass-kicking all in one go

Jerril

The “parenting power” argument is, as other commenters have noted, totally irrelevant to the subject of same sex marriage.

That said, when someone comes up with a dog-and-pony show to try and distract you, it’s twice as satisfying to be able to say “That’s a cat, not a dog. Dog or cat, equestrian housepets are still irrelevant to the speed limit on highway 401. Go away.”

Pointing out their irrelevant argument is irrelevant is helpful for persuading the people who can realize it’s irrelevant.

Pointing out their irrelevant argument is also WRONG helps mop up some of the folks who insist it IS relevant, but still follow logic.

Logic-based approaches just don’t work for those people who’s position is based entirely on “icky feelings”. If you didn’t get to your position based on logic, it can be very hard (nigh impossible) to get logicked back out of it.

Geof

Franken’s interpretation is absolutely correct. He says of the study to Minnery, “it actually doesn’t say what you said it says.” Well, I actually read Minnery’s testimony. Here’s Minnery’s claim about the study’s findings:

“the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services explains . . . that children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”

Underline the last bit: “compared with children in any other family form.” Minnery is representing the study as showing that children with opposite-sex parents are better off than those with same-sex parents. It makes no such comparison, providing no evidence one way or the other (indeed, the terms “same-sex”, “homosexual”, and “gay” do not appear at all). Franken’s presentation is indeed a slam dunk.

Imagine Minnery instead claimed that the study shows kids with white parents do better than kids with Asian parents. In both cases, Minnery would be citing the study as support for an argument he was making, and it both cases the study would provide no such support.

But poop on Franken for for his anti-democratic support of PROTECT IP.

TooGoodToCheck

The study concludes that A is better than B. Focus on the family tries to say that this means that A is better than C. Franken points out that the study didn’t actually distinguish between A & C, although IMO C was probably not heavily represented, which means that probably no relevant conclusions can be drawn either way.

I do like that Focus got called out for trying to use a study that didn’t actually support their conclusions.

Wickedashtray

I truly respect Al Franken as I believe he thinks he’s doing the right thing. No doubt this person had what was coming to him. Having said that Franken, as a politician, has pulled similar crap in order to get his own pet legislation passed in the past.

The current atmosphere of bipartisan politicos playing “gotcha” has done absolutely nothing but pander to their respective constituents. It HAS TO STOP. If it does not, we will slowly sink into a has-been nation that once was a shining example of what democracy and hard work could do. The first step is to get news from anywhere outside of US news sources, may they be Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the like. We’re being manipulated like sheep and no one seems to be concerned.

technogeek

Elegantly don, Mr. Franken. No hostility, just a simple correction of a very sloppy citation, and an observation that if this is an example of the quality of the “research” the witness has conducted the credibility of his other claims is doubtful until/unless independently confirmed.

If you’re going in as a witness, you DO NOT make this kind of mistake. You proofread everything. You have someone else read it. You do practice interviews. And, yes, you check your citations rather than assuming they mean what you want them to mean.

If you don’t, you’re wasting your time and the committee’s time, and you’re endangering the reputation of the group you’re representing.

FotF was sloppy. Whoever let them be that sloppy _was_ an idiot. Whether or not one agrees with their position, that is a mistake which carries its own penalty. If they don’t care enough to do it right, they really don’t care enough to be listened to.

Evolution takes no prisoners. Debate takes very few.

Anonymous

Keep in mind that the mere use of that study by Focus on the Family points to the larger problem of oppressing gay people: You don’t justify allowing gay people to get married by arguing about whether their kids do better or worse than other families’ kids.

If optimal child-rearing environments were a legitimate state interest in marriage, and the “justification” for marriage, I’m sure you could find plenty of other demographics whose marriages couldn’t be justified, since their kids would do worse in that marriage than in some other family – like inner-city families that may struggle to keep a household together.

Is that a good reason to outlaw their marriages? Um, no. As a matter of law and public policy we don’t outlaw marriages based on child-rearing comparisons between families.

This entire argument about comparative child-rearing “success” is a case of allowing Focus on the Family to frame the debate, and we play along like dummies.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have policies that protect kids, but we don’t use those policies to outlaw marriages between consenting adults.

TheViolentVicar

This is the only point Franken makes:

Minnery misrepresents, either through incompetence or by design, the content of the report in a way that serves to bolster his position. The rest of his testimonly must therefore be treated as untrustworthy.

I think that’s perfectly fair.

mn_camera

Minnery misrepresents, either through incompetence or by design, the content of the report in a way that serves to bolster his position. The rest of his testimonly must therefore be treated as untrustworthy.

Excerpted simply because it bears repeating.

Evan

I like how you said “marriage equality” in the description and used the word “homophobic” in the title. Think you could use anymore pro gay rights buzzwords in that tiny article?

robulus

Nice work Evan, I think you detected the pro civil rights bias on Boing Boing! What a bunch of touchy feely commies, hey?

catgrin

To those who say that exposing the flaw in Minnery’s interpretation of the study is “no big deal” I have to say I disagree. Studies like the one he was using to support his claims seek to test a certain scope of proposed ideas. (In this case, the study, â€œFamily Structure and Childrenâ€™s Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Information Survey, 2001-2007.â€ sought only to find health differences between children in stable nuclear households and in other types of housing, like foster care). Using a study as a resource for something other than what it was intended and broadening conclusions made by the authors simply isn’t kosher – and I’m sure Minnery knows that.

Minnery really is the imbecile BoingBoing assumes him to be in the title. He was playing politics and hoping to get away with using a study that most senators wouldn’t bother read to confirm the content of and that is why this is a big deal. Franken called him out, and at the same time reminded people that anything coming across his desk would get read rather than shuffled. That’s why the room went “ooOOOOoo” when he said he’d read it. By pointing out the misinterpretation of the study (which would have had a summary stating all the claims you could make based on it), Franken brought all of Minnery’s dependent claims into question. It’s something lawyers do all the time, and Franken killed it. His success here is multifaceted: debunking the attachment of the study, lowering the value of any other claims made by his opponent, strengthening his own position, and raising people’s opinion of him as a politician.

Anonymous

More Senator Al, less blind hate.

Layne

Stop the BB presses! A Democrat does something somewhat impressive, but effectively inconsequential!

Now we return to our usual endless partison lopsidedness and Murdoch bashing.

Talia

I know, it’s awful isn’t it, poor Rupert. He must be just crushed inside. Fortunately he has you to white knight for him. :P

Anonymous

We need more people in public life who can and do point out bad logic and bad use of statistics. Too many people for far too long have been acting like they are logical when they are not!

catgrin

Hear, hear #65!

Franken calmly pointing out Minnery’s (most likely deliberate) bad leap in logic is an example of something that needs to be seen more often in our political arena.

For far too long, there have been people using pulled quotes, referenced articles, and journals inappropriately, hoping that their short-term blow (providing them with a tasty sound bite or immediately stronger argument) will outweigh the long term effect of people discovering that the information used was unsound.

It will take a combination of responsible politics, reporting, and public behavior to change this trend, because they will only continue to use it as long as it works.

For example: Even now, if you do a Google search for “90 percent “, the seventh option is “90 percent planned parenthood”, the top response to that is (fortunately) an explanation debunking Sen. Jon Kyl’s claim about the way funds are used by the organization.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

TheViolentVicar

On another point, though, think of the wider implications of the argument Minnery seeks to make: one should determine who should be entitled to marry by assessing various statistical characteristics of the children of ‘similar’ unions.

Should we then have a debate on whether people of certain socio-economic classes should be allowed to marry? Certain skin colors? Certain educational backgrounds?

pauldavis

i’d like to add that i violently agree with TheViolentVicar’s point (also made by Anon just beforehand too).
evilpyrate

This point also extends to a discussion my wife had with her father about gay marriage.

Specifically to do with children. Her father’s point was that marriage was about procreation and the benefit of the children.

Her response was that she and I had no intention of procreating. Does that make our marriage any less valid?

He thought for a minute, and then decided that he needed to do more thinking on his position.
- sdmikev
  
  I’d like to think that people would be able to connect those dots on their own, but alas they often cannot.
- OrcOnTheEndOfMyFork
  
  Specifically to do with children. Her father’s point was that marriage was about procreation and the benefit of the children.
  
  Her response was that she and I had no intention of procreating. Does that make our marriage any less valid?
  
  He thought for a minute, and then decided that he needed to do more thinking on his position.
  
  Well, it’s good to when someone has to think about why they believe a certain thing when they realize they don’t have an answer for that. However, it also doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason just because someone was caught off guard, much like 2 + 2 doesn’t stop adding up to 4 just because you stumped a three year old.
  
  The reason, [i]for what it’s worth[/i] (and please note, this is the big qualifier here, it’s important for later) that the traditional man and woman marriage is okay even if there are no children involved is one of “acceptable norms.”
  
  The goal of marriage has, up until recently, been about creating stable families and homes. If a woman got accidentally pregnant, she didn’t want to find herself raising a child alone in a world where women often couldn’t earn much of a living. So, even if some marriages were intended to be fruitless in regards with children, with limited to no birth control, if there was an unexpected pregnancy you were still safe.
  
  Times change, however.
  
  There’s better birth control, and even abortion can be an option. Also, the prevalence of divorce has reduced the meaningfulness of permanent, stable homes “for the sake of the children.” Add to this the fact that western societies currently raise fewer and fewer children.
  
  When people oppose gay marriage, they are really out to save a dying tradition. But it was dying long before this issue turned up, slowly being killed by the heterosexuals who stopped caring about creating stable families to raise their young (thus the phrase ‘for what it’s worth’).
  
  So, at a time when marriage has lost most of its meaning, it’s not so strange to consider reinventing it. At one point, marriage was merely about a father trading his “property” (i.e. his daughter) in exchange for a bride price from the groom’s family. Marriage has changed before and it will change again.
- Baldhead
  
  he decided to do more thinking? wow. beats most I’ve had that argument with. Usually they do some other fallback argument- intelligent or otherwise. But that was I suppose in person and specifically regarding a loved one. The procreation argument is so easily countered by pointing out that the elderly and the barren are freely allowed to marry, as long as they aren’t gay, it’s amazing anyone even tries it anymore. Same too with people who claim to want to protect marriage but won’t outlaw divorce.
Cowicide

On another point, though, think of the wider implications of the argument Minnery seeks to make: one should determine who should be entitled to marry by assessing various statistical characteristics of the children of ‘similar’ unions.

Should we then have a debate on whether people of certain socio-economic classes should be allowed to marry? Certain skin colors? Certain educational backgrounds?

I’m not sure that homophobic christians should be allowed to breed, that’s for sure. I’ve seen for myself the results of their “tough love” (soft hate) on their children who are some of the most fucked up people I could ever know.

Hey, if this asshole want to eradicate bad parents… he should eradicate himself.
Teller

The speculation of the wider implications of Minnery’s “argument” – that it could lead to marriage denial due to economic, racial or educational shortcomings reminds me of the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to brother/sister, human/animal or man/sofa marriages. Kinda stretching for the fear factor. I haven’t read the HHS report, but I bet nothing like that’s in the conclusion section.
- TheViolentVicar
  
  I am not fear-mongering. I am simply pointing out that there is no principled basis upon which to confine the ‘how the kids are doing’ argument to assessing the merit of allowing same-sex marriage.
  
  Quite to the contrary, I say that if an intellectually honest and consistent society accepts the proposition that it may allow or disallow marriage on the some metric assessing the wellbeing of the children of such marriages, then it must apply the criteria universally. That means that whatever groups have the highest chance of producing high-risk offspring should be denied the right to marry, and goodbye to Fox News’ target audience within a generation. I’d bet you a cookie that, on an unbiased analysis of this sort, gay unions would emerge unscathed.
  
  The very thought of societal acceptance of such a policy is repugnant.
  - Teller
    
    Well, I like cookies, so I’ll take that bet.
    The incidence of domestic violence among same-sex couples is probably equal to what occurs among op-sex couples. Gay people aren’t some special alien beings; they’re human. Adding children to any troubled, perhaps violent, household endangers a kid’s well being. And that household would fall outside of this so-called ‘acceptable’ metric. So if the bet is “gay unions would emerge unscathed,” I like oatmeal.
    - TheViolentVicar
      
      I have written inelegantly and imprecisely, and you are right to pick me up on it.
      
      Fortunately, your example has nicely illustrated the precise concept I sought unsuccessfully to convey: if one were to prohibit marriages – for the purpose of doing what is, empirically, most likely to protect the offspring – on the basis of some single criterion that defines the prospective couple, one might reasonably choose “violent”, “stupid”, “destitute”, “smacked around as a child”, or perhaps, “from a culture in which it is acceptable for the head of the household to abuse the other members of the family”. One would not choose “gay”.
Mark Frauenfelder

That is a really important point — and one that I didn’t think of until you mentioned it.

facetedjewel

I sat there listening, a smile spreading across my face, and thinking how much I’m going to enjoy watching freshman Senator Al Franken, grow older and more powerful in office.

callen

Good Lord! A senator that checks the facts! We need many, many more just like him.

pauldavis

i was momentarily swayed from my earlier position by some of the posts above. but … i think those of arguing that franken’s dimissal of minnery is correct are still missing the point.

mark F. is right that the study did not compare same-sex and mixed-sex families, and its right to call out minnery or anyone else on claiming that the study demonstrates a clear difference there.

but i don’t think you could put up a very strong argument with minnery if he had said “this study shows that mixed gender, married households are the best ones to raise kids in, and it shows that because all married households are mixed gender”. he would have been slightly inaccurate, perhaps, for a tiny fraction of households in the study, but he would still be basically correct from a syntactical perspective.

from the politico article:

â€œSen. Franken is right,â€ the lead author of the study told POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the â€œnuclear familyâ€ category provided their family met the studyâ€™s definition.

blackwell is of course correct, but given the period of the study, were there actually any married, same-sex households included, given that it was an unachievable pairing for almost everyone?

minnery is wrong to claim that it makes the differentiation that he mentions – the study doesn’t differentiate between mixed gender and marriage as causal roles in the study’s outcome. but it also doesn’t rule out the possibility that mixed sex + marriage (when combined) are the key causal elements either. so i think its a bit of both – franken is right to call him on the misrepresentation, but its wrong to believe that the study actually provides evidence that same sex + marriage has the same outcomes as mixed sex + marriage – that requires a study to be done at a time when the former is open to everyone, which i hope happens yesterday, or even the day before that.

robulus

The argument isn’t that the study provides evidence of same sex marriage having successful parenting outcomes, the argument is that the study has no bearing on same sex marriage and is irrelevant to the discussion.

DeathandGravity

owned.

Senator Franken shames homophobic imbecile

More at Boing Boing