Leading up to the 2015 landmark Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which made marriage equality a federal right, sociologist Mark Regnerus published controversial research titled the “New Family Structures Study”. Regnerus, who is forthcoming about the fact that his Catholic faith shapes his practice as a social scientist, published the study in 2012 in the journal Social Science Research. 

The study purported that children raised by a parent in a same-gender relationship are at greater risk of negative psychosocial outcomes in adulthood compared to children raised by straight parents. The study was funded primarily by The Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation, both far-right interest groups that actively lobby against LGBTQ+ rights, and was viewed by many political commentators as a blatant effort by both groups to influence the Supreme Court’s decision in several high-profile cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges.

---

---

Regnerus denied the allegations, although a leaked correspondence challenged his defense and insinuated that the study was designed to produce specific results to challenge the idea that children raised by same-gender parents experience similar psychosocial outcomes to those raised by straight parents.

The study drew immense backlash from the mainstream social science community, with many social scientists suggesting that Regnerus’s methodologies and classification of participants meant that no valid conclusions could be drawn. The study simply asked young adults ages eighteen to thirty-nine if their parents ever had a sexual or romantic relationship with anyone of the same gender, categorized those individuals as having a sexual minority parent based on that metric alone, and used them as a contrast to stable households with two straight parents. 

Furthermore, of the 236 counted as having an LGBTQ+ parent, only two of the participants qualified as being raised in a two-parent,  same gender household for the duration of their childhood. Regnerus failed to acknowledge that many children raised by same-gender parents come from dissolved straight relationships, as well as the fact that social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated that children raised by same-gender parents do not differ in terms of psychosocial outcomes compared to children raised by straight parents.

The backlash and media attention were so immense that the American Sociological Association (ASA) submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in multiple cases in support of marriage equality. In these briefs, the ASA very clearly countered Regnerus’s “New Family Structures Study,” arguing that his data was highly flawed, he did not have a representative sample, and he failed to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that children raised by same-gender parents do not differ from children raised by straight parents. 

While the study eventually fell out of social commentary in the United States, today’s “Greater Than” movement, a coalition of prominent anti-LGBTQ+ lobbyists and political figures, has utilized it as one of its primary motivations to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. 

In 2025, the Witherspoon Institute, which funded Regnerus’s study, released an op-ed, conveniently in its own publication, claiming there is “new vindication” for the study because AI has supposedly allowed for a more accurate interpretation of his data. Meanwhile, the writer conveniently avoids the elephant in the room: The allegation that Regenerus manipulated his data to suit his own theological worldview. 

The “Greater Than” movement’s key figures include the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins; Jim Daly of Focus on the Family; and Kim Faust of the “Them Before Us” movement. The campaign promotes the idea that “children are greater than equal” to argue that children’s rights are violated by marriage equality and that children need to be protected from the influences of the “LGBTQ+ agenda” in the United States. 

But, as the adage goes, the “Greater Than” movement is “greater than the sum of its parts.” This is a coalition of Christian nationalist lobbyists, attorneys, charity groups, and interest groups that are highly mobilized, networked, and funded, and one cannot overlook that last point in particular. These are groups with combined budgets that reach well into the billions of dollars.

Despite all of their assets, the only legit body of research the “Greater Than” movement clings to in support of its claim that marriage equality harms children is data comparing children raised by married straight parents to children raised in single-parent households or divorced households. And yes, it is no surprise that children raised in two-parent households do better than children raised in single-parent households in terms of various social and emotional outcomes, mainly that they are less likely to experience poverty or struggle academically. 

It is important to note, however, that these findings are likely driven by social determinants of health, and the advantages of being raised in a household with two married parents are not shared by all children, especially in households with significant conflict between married parents, which often occurs even among religious households. 

However, comparing the risk factors of children being raised in single-parent or divorced households to those raised by married LGBTQ+ individuals is not only unfair but also dishonest. Studies have consistently demonstrated over the past thirty years that children raised by LGBTQ+ parents, even among co-habitating LGBTQ+ parents who did not have the legal ability to get married before Obergefell, don’t differ in terms of social and emotional outcomes, and in some educational metrics actually perform better. 

This movement is especially heartbreaking considering the thousands of children in foster care who are waiting to be adopted. It makes one wonder. What is more important: a child’s needs for a forever home or identity politics?