So, a judge in Michigan has tossed out that state's law against same-sex marriages and the editorial page of the Salt Lake Tribune typifies the judge's assessment of the state's expert witnesses as being basically liars.
Two of those witnesses, the Trib notes, are witnesses Utah is using as it attempts to get its ban on same-sex-marriages validated by the courts. What do I think of the Michigan court's calling Mark Regnerus "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration"?
I think it should be much more difficult for the judge and the Tribune to dismiss Regnerus and his study. If you look objectively at what that study represents, you must consider it has more claim to validity than the studies which preceded it. Studies prior were much smaller in their sampling, and generally were not done in as random of a fashion. The Regnerus, study, therefore, was conducted in a more scientific fashion. If you reject it in favor of studies done with less regard for proper procedure that does not lend me to think you are being objective.
Sorry, Judge Bernard Friedman, and sorry, Salt Lake Tribune.
Or, perhaps to reject the Regnerus study means no more than that you are unaware of the background of that study, to realize it is the one conducted in the sounder fashion. All of us sometimes fail to look at a matter enough before we speak. So it is with the Michigan judge and so it is with the SL Trib writer. Whether you are a judge in Michigan or an editorial writer for the Tribune, you can still fall victim to not having considered a matter before rushing to judgement.
The Tribune editorial speaks of credibility. What is credibility, in this case? Is it rejecting a study done in sounder fashion in favor of studies done with less sound procedures?
No comments:
Post a Comment