Studies used to influence high court

Among the arguments over same-sex marriage before the US Supreme Court are those saying that kids do worse or as well as normal families. Eg, see Mark Regnerus and his critics. No one has a large sample of kids fully reared by same-sex couples, so there is a debate over how to count women who had a kid in a regular marriage, and then went lesbian. I have mentioned the controversy.

I doubt that any of this will matter. The liberal justices will want to strike a blow for leftist social justice, regardless of the consequences.

Here is a simple example of how a study can get distorted. Philip Greenspun notes:

“Mom: The Designated Worrier” is a Mother’s Day gift from the New York Times, an example of “tall poppy syndrome” in which the best way to build up mothers is to point out how useless fathers are.

Here’s a representative quote:

Half of the men surveyed in a Families and Work Institute study from 2008 said they were either the responsible parent or shared the role equally with their spouse, while two-thirds of the women said they were the one in charge. This suggests that either men overestimate their contribution or women define the work differently.

Apparently neither the writer nor the editors of the New York Times thought that it was possible for a woman to overestimate her contributions as a parent.

Good point. I am all for credit moms on Mothers Day, but this one is just another husband belittling nut.