Below is the reformatted Deposition of Dr. Mark Regnerus in the Michigan Gay Marriage Trial.

It is the first time Dr. Regnerus has ever testified under oath. In an effort to make this testimony more readable the line numbers have been stripped away. Frequently inserted for example is (page198) into this reformatted testimony. This is the actual page number in the Official Court Deposition Record. (Not the .pdf page number, the page number as shown by the Court Reporter on the upper right of the pages). The Deposition Exhibits List is modified by adding a description of the Exhibit and wherever possible a link to the Exhibit Link to the Mark Regnerus Deposition as recorded by the Court Reporter Link to Dr. Michael Rosenfelds Trial Testimony where he discusses the Regnerus an other Studies Rosenfeld 1 Rosenfeld 2 Links to Dr. Mark Regners Trial Testimony Regnerus 1 Regnerus 2 Regnerus 3 Following the below Deposition is a discussion. This can be a challenging read as there is a lot of text, but still an improvement over the format used by the Court Reporter. SELECT ALL and changing the Paragraph Formatting to 1.5 line spacing will make it easier for you to read. (Page 1) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. Civil Action No. 12-cv-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman RICHARD SNYDER, et al, Mag. Michael J. Hluchaniuk Defendants. __________________________

The Deposition of MARK D. REGNERUS, PH.D., Taken at 525 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan, Commencing at 9:08 a.m., Wednesday, January 8, 2014, Before Patricia A. Way, CSR-1201 (Page 2)

APPEARANCES: LESLIE COOPER American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 [Redacted] [Redacted] -andCAROLE M. STANYAR 221 N. Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 [Redacted] [Redacted] Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs. (Page 3) KRISTIN M. HEYSE TONYA C. JETER MICHELLE M. BRYA Michigan Department of Attorney General Health, Education & Family Services Division 525 W. Ottawa Street 3rd Floor Lansing, Michigan 48909 [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] Appearing on behalf of State Defendants. (Page 4) INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS Witness Page MARK D. REGNERUS, PH.D. EXAMINATION BY MS. COOPER .............................7 INDEX TO EXHIBITS Exhibit Page (Exhibits attached to transcript.) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 1....9 Regnerus Expert Report in

The Michigan Trial DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 ..30 Regnerus Study "Religion and Positive Adolescent" DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 3..102 E-Mails with Brad Wilcox DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 ..105 E-Mails With Abbie Goldberg (.pdf page3) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 5 ..113 New Family Structures Study (NFSS) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 6 ..114 (NotPeer Reviewed) Answering Critics of NFSS DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 7 ..114 Response to Paul Amato, David Eggebeen DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 8 ..118 Q & A with Mark Regnerus DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 9 ..134 Paul Amato on reviewing Regnerus DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 10..146 Regnerus Authored Amicus Brief Prop 8 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 11..163 Witherspoon Luis Tellez e-mail (.pdf pg 27) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 12..166 Brad Wilcox E-Mail (Page 5) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 13..177 Paul Amato E-Mails DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 14..186 Bradley Foundation $$$ Req. (.pdf pg 11) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 15..193 Regnerus Media Training 2 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 16..205 Regnerus Alum Trinity Christian College DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 17..215 Helen Alvare sent me e-mails (.pdf pg 33) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 18..218 Witherspoon Canada Article by Regnerus DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 19..227 Witherspoon Regnerus article on Porn DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 20..228 Witherspoon Regnerus Article. Yes, Marriage Will Change--and Heres How DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 21..228 Witherspoon Regnerus Article The New Birds and the Bees DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 22..228 Washington Post Regnerus Article Freedom to Marry Young DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 23..229 Patheos Blog Regnerus Article Unplanned Pregnancies: The Subtle Assault on Half of Us DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 24..229 National Review Online Regnerus Article Right Side of History, or Primed to Say Yes? DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 25..245 Michigan Gay Marriage Trial dr. Joe Price Expert Report (Page 6) Lansing, Michigan Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:08 a.m. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We are now on the record. This is the videotaped deposition of Dr. Mark Regnerus taken on Wednesday, January 8th, 2014. The time is now 9:08 a.m. We are located at 525 Ottawa, the Michigan Attorney General's Office, in Lansing, Michigan. We are here in the matter of April DeBoer, et al, versus Richard Snyder, et al. The case number is 12-cv-10285 taking place in the US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. My name is Bill Hunt, the video technician. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear in the witness?

MARK D. REGNERUS, PH.D. was thereupon called as a witness herein, and after having first been duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: I do. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: And, counselors, please state your appearances. (Page 7) MS. HEYSE: Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse for the State Defendants. MS. STANYAR: Carole Stanyar on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and on the phone is Leslie Cooper on behalf of the Plaintiffs. MS. COOPER: Leslie Cooper here on behalf of Plaintiffs. MS. BRYA: Michelle Brya on behalf of the State Defendants. MS. JETER: Tonya Jeter on behalf of the State Defendants. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Please continue. EXAMINATION BY MS. COOPER: Q. Good morning, Dr. Regnerus. As I said, I'm Leslie Cooper and I'll be taking your deposition today. First question, have you ever had your deposition taken before? A. I have not. Q. Okay. Well, I'm sure counsel for Defendants told you a little bit about how it works, but just so we're on the same page, I'll be asking you a series of questions that you'll be answering under oath, and especially since we are not in the same room, but even, in any case, for the benefit of the court (Page 8) reporter, it's really important to make sure you give verbal answers rather than nodding so that she can type down what you say, and -- and to try to keep your voice up so that she can hear you and I can hear you well. You know, we will periodically take breaks. If you feel that you need a break before anybody else asks for one, just -- just say so and I'll find a good time to, you know, finish up, short -- the line of questions and -- and take a break as quickly as possible. And just want to make sure you're feeling okay, that you're in a position to honestly and completely answer questions that I will have of you today? A. Yes. Q. Great. And -- and do you have any questions about the process before we begin? A. I don't. Q. Okay. Great. Well, I'd like to start by asking Carole to hand over document 1 to mark as our first exhibit. That is the expert report that you have submitted in this case, and I'd like to, Ms. Heyse, if it's okay with you, start labeling the exhibits as -- using Dr. Regnerus' initials, MR-1, for the first (Page 9) exhibit. MS. HEYSE: That's fine. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 9:11 a.m. MS. COOPER: Okay. And if you all let me know when you have that marked and in front of Dr. Regnerus -THE WITNESS: I have it. MS. COOPER: -- that would be great. THE WITNESS: I have it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Great. So I'd like you to flip to the conclusion section of the report -MS. HEYSE: Leslie -- Leslie, hold on for just a moment. It needs to be marked.

MS. COOPER: Okay. COURT REPORTER: All right. MS. COOPER: Ready? MS. STANYAR: You can go ahead. BY MS. COOPER: Q. All right. If you can turn to your conclusion section, on page 16 it begins, and I'd like you to go down to the last two paragraphs, 62 and 63, and I just want to read them together because I'm going to ask (Page 10) you a few questions about them. You say, in paragraph 62, "As a result" -- referring to the previous portion of the conclusion: "As a result, social scientists are unable to document with any degree of certainty that no developmental harm is done to children growing up in households wherein parents are in (or have been in) same-sex relationships. Additionally, the past three years have witnessed the publication of three peer-reviewed studies that assess children's outcomes of having lived in a same-sex household or having witnessed the same-sex romantic relationship of a parent using data from large, population-based samples: My NFSS-based study, a re-analysis of US Census data, and an analysis of Canadian census data. All three raise concerns, suggesting that any consensus about 'no differences' is premature at best, and may well be inaccurate." Then in paragraph 63 you go on to say: "With so many significant outstanding questions about whether children develop as well in same-sex households as in opposite-sex households, it remains prudent for government to continue to recognize marriage as a union of a (Page 11) man and a woman, thereby promoting what is known to be an ideal environment for raising children." Okay. So my first question I have for you on that is, do I understand correctly that it is not your professional opinion or expert opinion that the research that we have has established that children fare worse when raised by same-sex parents as compared to heterosexual biological parents but, rather, we just don't know yet and recent research raises concerns that that may be the case? A. Could you just restate that? I had -- there's a couple negatives in there and I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're -Q. Sure. A. -- saying. Q. Yeah. Great. So do I understand correctly that you are not offering the professional or expert opinion that the research has established that children fare worse when raised by same-sex parents -A. Research -Q. -- than heterosexual biological parents but, rather, we just don't know yet, and research raises concerns that that may be the case? A. Basically what I'm saying is that it's -- it's premature to make any strong conclusions that there is (Page 12) no developmental harm whatsoever among children who have been raised in households wherein a parent has or -- is in or has had a same-sex relationship. I think it's premature to make that conclusion about no developmental harm whatsoever. Q. Is it premature to make the conclusion that there are developmental harms based on being raised in a same-sex parent household compared to a heterosexual biological two-parent household? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. MS. COOPER: You can answer. MS. HEYSE: You can answer. THE WITNESS: I think it -- it -- it's -- I've said elsewhere that -- in the report that the science is young in this area and so what is really required to address some of these issues is a longitudinal study tracking the same children in different kinds of households with different kinds of parental experiences for a very long time. That would be the ideal kind of study. It does not exist. The study that I conducted and a few

other studies of population-based data have raised questions about the previous conclusions that there are no differences. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So then am I -- then would you agree that it is (Page 13) premature to conclude that the science demonstrates that there are harms associated with being raised in same-sex parent households? A. I think it's premature to conclude exactly the -- the-- how much problems children endure. I don't think it's premature to conclude that in population-based data sets, when parents have had same-sex relationships, children seem to fare worse than they do when they're raised in an intact biological family where mom and dad are and stay married. Q. Is it premature to conclude that children brought into families by same-sex couples either through assisted reproduction or adoption have poorer outcomes as compared to biological heterosexual twoparent families? A. We don't have population-based data on assisted reproductive technology so far as I am aware. There have been nonprobability sample studies of assisted reproductive technology, but in adopted situations, the literature on adoption -- and I cited a study of the Longitud -- National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health -- that documented that children who are adopted by strangers or adopted -- adopted by strangers are -- display documental differences when compared with children who are raised by their (Page 14) biological parents. Q. So then is it premature, then, to conclude that children in -- using assisted -- brought into families by lesbian or gay couples through assisted reproduction, donor sperm or donor ova, fare worse than children raised by heterosexual biological-parent families? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: To restate briefly what I just said, we don't have population-based data analyses, so far as I'm aware, of children growing up and then -- who were -- were born by assisted reproductive technologies. What has been -MS. COOPER: So it -THE WITNESS: -- conducted to this point -MS. COOPER: Then we don't know. THE WITNESS: -- is small samples. MS. HEYSE: Ms. Cooper, please let him answer the ques -- finish his answer. THE WITNESS: What we have is studies based on nonprobability samples, and I think we should privilege the data collection of large probability-based studies before we make that conclusion. (Page 15) BY MS. COOPER: Q. But to make sure I understand, you -- you think that the nonprobability sample studies are not sufficient to form conclusions, and we don't have any probability-based studies comparing families born by lesbian couples through donor insemination with heterosexual biological two-parent families; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection. I think that mischaracterizes his testimony. THE WITNESS: That was a mouthful of a question, so I'm just going to basically say that nonprobability samples -- we cannot know, because they are nonprobability samples, how comparable they are to the population they seek to represent, and so I think in significant matters like this we want to privilege the collection of probability-based data which will tell us about -- for example, parents who have children by assisted reproductive technology as a -- as a group, rather than to privilege people who volunteered to participate in a study where they were targeted because they had a child via assisted reproductive technology.

BY MS. COOPER: Q. But I -- did I understand correctly, we don't have (Page 16) that proba -- probability -- populationbased sample studies of children of lesbian couples through assisted reproduction; is that right? A. Not that I'm aware of. I mean, it's a pretty uncommon procedure in the United States still. Ninetyeight --roughly ninety-eight and a half percent of the children born in the United States are born apart from assisted reproductive technology, and the majority of children who are born that way are born from heterosexual parents or are raised by heterosexual parents, and so we just don't know -- we don't have a - a -- it's a small sample. Let's put it that way. Q. So if there were probability -- sorry. If there were population-based samples that -- that you deemed to be good studies -- one moment, please. The lights turn off in my room if I don't move so I have to go turn them back on. Let me -- let me start that again. If If there were population-based samples that -that were deemed reliable that ultimately showed equivalent outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples and heterosexual biological parents, would you support marriage for same-sex couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. (Page 17) BY MS. COOPER: Q. He can -- you can answer. A. I confess I haven't thought of it. Q. So then before you started your -- got involved in the NFSS study, did -- you didn't have a view on whether you supported or -- or approved marriage for same-sex couples? A. A view on same-sex marriage, you mean? Q. Right. A. My response to the last question was that I had not conceived of thinking about the subject with respect to a population-based study of ART couples. Q. Okay. A. I am -- yeah. I'm not a fan of same-sex marriage, correct. Q. And that was before -- was that true before you started the NFSS? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And -- and what was the basis for that, before your NFSS study, and I guess that was also prior to the Canadian and US Census data studies that you reference in your report. What was your basis for not being a fan of same-sex marriage? A. The basis for that is largely that marriage, in my mind and in much of human history, has seemed to (Page 18) privilege three things -- well, besides the sort of stable structure of a male and a female, expectations of permanence, fidelity and, generally, the anticipation of children, and that -- that doesn't seem to -- to comport with same-sex marriage, and so I've never been a fan of it. Nothing against union formation. It just doesn't seen to be marriage. Q. And I want to make sure I heard you. Fidelity, and what was the second item in the list? A. Permanence. Q. Permanence, okay. So fidelity, permanence and anticipation of children were the three items on that list? A. Generally, yup. Q. Okay. And is that based on religious beliefs or some other set of beliefs? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: You know, I'm not sure it's based on religious beliefs. I don't think it is out of consonance with religious beliefs, but it just seems to be those are hallmarks of marriage through much of human history and I continue to hold those today. BY MS. COOPER:

Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, looking back at your report (Page 19) Exhibit 1, in paragraph 12, you say here, the first sentence: "Despite the challenges noted above, the hallmark of a rigorous study is a large, representative pool of participants drawn from a population-based random sample." Is that -- that's true within your field of sociology; is that right? A. I -- I would say that's correct. Q. Uh-huh. Is that also true in the field of psychology? A. Not necessarily in psychology. Q. And is it true that -- that most research in psychology uses smaller, nonrepresentative samples? A. That is my understanding. Q. Uh-huh. And most of the research on gay-parent families that exist comes from psychologists; is that right? A. Probably more than average although there -- there are not hundreds and hundreds of studies so far as I'm aware, but more from psychologists than sociologists. Q. Now, of the studies that look at outcomes for children in same-sex parent families, do any of them compare same -- children of same-sex parents to intact mother/father families? A. I believe in my -- either the initial study or the (Page 20) follow-up study I talked about a handful of studies that did, and I know that Mike Rosenfeld from Stanford mentioned that fact in his -- I believe in his 2010 demography piece. Q. Uh-huh. A. There were not many studies that did compare them to intact two-parent, biological families. Most compared them to -- sometimes they would call them matched samples which I know in the case of Patterson's analyses of 44 cases from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, she compared those to a matched sample which was unclear, and I don't think it was described what was in that matched sample, but often it would be to, so far as I can recall, single-parent families or stepfamilies. Q. So of that handful of studies that compared same-sex parent families with intact mother/father families, the convenient sample studies that do that, did they show poorer outcomes for children in the same-sex parent group? A. My recollection is that once -- so, for example, Rosenfeld, once he accounted for the stabil -- fiveyear stability in the community, he he would -- first noted baseline differences accounts for stability and then sees, quote, no differences after (Page 21) that. Q. Uh-huh. A. I also know that in a Journal of Marriage and Family article of a year or two ago, I think that was of the -- the longitudinal study that began with kindergarteners, noted baseline differences in children's academic flourishing prior to controlling for the stability of the couples, and after controlling for the stability -- or, rather, the instability of couples, noted no differences, but prior to that they noted clear and obvious differences. Q. Yeah. I -- I would have been asking, actually, about the convenient sample studies. A. Oh. Q. The -- the -- compared. Do any of those convenient sample studies that compared same-sex parents to intact mother-father families find poorer outcomes for children of -A. I'm not -Q. -- same-sex -A. I'm not recalling. I'm not -Q. Excuse me? A. I'm sorry. I don't recall. One of the hallmarks of the National Longitudinal and Lesbian Family Study

is (Page 22) they've published 19 different manuscripts but the control or comparison group in a variety of those articles would change, and sometimes there was no control group or comparison group at all, so I couldn't answer your question about which ones those were. Q. Okay. So to -- now, in -- going back to your report, paragraph -- let's see -- 60, the conclusion. MS. HEYSE: Six-zero, Leslie? MS. COOPER: Yes. MS. HEYSE: Thank you. BY MS. COOPER: Q. You say in the third sentence: "In social reality there may genuinely be two 'gold standards' of family stability and context for children's flourishing - a stably-coupled heterosexual couple household and a stably-coupled homosexual household, but no population-based sample analyses have yet been able to consistently confirm wide evidence of the latter." Just a quick question about that. You say "consistently confirm." Are you aware of any population-based studies comparing children in same-sex and married heterosexual families that did (Page 23) find equivalent outcomes? A. Could you repeat the last clause of your question? Q. Sure. Well, I'll just read it again to be sure. Are you aware of any pop -- population-based studies comparing children in same-sex and married heterosexual parents finding equivalent outcomes? A. Prior to controlling for stability of household, I am unaware of that. Q. Okay. A. In population-based data. Q. Okay. I'd like to turn now to paragraph 33 of your report. Okay? A. Yes. Q. And I'm going to -- if you'll read along with me. You say: "What the social science of gay parenting based on nonprobability samples has taught us is that it is possible for children raised in same-sex households to develop normally and competently across a variety of domains, but not whether it is probable that they will." My first question about that: So it it is not your position that all children raised by same-sex parents have poorer outcomes than children in heterosexual biological parent families; is that (Page 24) right? A. It's not my opinion that all of them have poorer outcomes, correct. Q. Okay. So some of the children of same-sex couples develop normally? A. Correct. Q. Yeah. And -- so we -- but we don't know if children of same-sex parents are as likely as children of heterosexual couples to develop well? That's your view? MS. HEYSE: Objection. That mischaracterizes his testimony. THE WITNESS: I'm not following you. Could you restate that? BY MS. COOPER: Q. Yes. Well, actually, I'm going to strike that question and move on. Are there population-based studies confirming the equivalent outcomes between children raised by, say, African-American parents and white parents? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It's outside the scope of his report. THE WITNESS: I have not evaluated that topic. (Page 25) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So you -- you don't know? A. I do not know. Q. Okay. Now, in the NFS -- NFSS study, you -- you asked for race, right? That was one of the things you found out about the -- the subjects; is that right?

A. Did you say "race"? Q. Race, yes. A. Yes. Q. But you -- you haven't done the analysis to see how, say, different ethnic or racial groups did in outcomes in your data; is that right? A. In NFSS? Yeah. It's in the regression results. I couldn't offhand recall them for you. The -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- the two publications report -- do not report the --the full regression results so -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- they're on a text file I -- but I -- I couldn't tell you this -- this morning what it says. Q. Okay. And -- and putting aside the specifics, I wouldn't press you to remember those details, but do you have a sense of whether there are any disparities based on race in the outcomes in your study? A. I did not pay close attention to it. To me, it was a (Page 26) control variable at the time. Q. Okay. Uh-huh. And why did you control for it? A. It was a standard common control in studies of large population samples. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Is there research confirming, population-based or otherwise, the equivalent outcomes between children raised by parents who have -- say, don't have a high -- college education and those that do? A. Could you repeat that question? Q. Sure. Is there research confirming the equivalent outcomes between children raised by parents who don't have a college education and those that do have a college education? A. I suspect there is. Q. Confirming the equivalent outcome? A. No. I suspect there is -- there are studies that evaluate it. Q. Uh-huh. A. Typically, college-educated parents, their children tend to flourish more consistently than those who didn't go to college. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And what about in your NFSS study; you -- you controlled for level of education of the parents, right? (Page 27) A. I believe I controlled for mother's education. Q. Okay. But you don't have a sense of how that affected 3 outcomes? A. Same with race. I'd have to go back to the -- the -- the original regression files but -Q. Okay. What about family income? Are there is there research confirming that, say, high-income and low-income families have children with equivalent outcomes? MS. HEYSE: Objection, outside the scope of Dr. Regnerus' report. THE WITNESS: As with the education example we just used, most of the studies that I'm aware of conclude that children who come from more educated -- I'm sorry -- more -- families with higherincome levels tend to flourish in particular domains when compared to kids from lower-income levels. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. Okay. What about religious beliefs? Is there research confirming equivalent outcomes between children raised by, say, conservative Protestant couples than mainline Protestants? MS. HEYSE: Objection, outside the scope. THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of it. (Page 28) BY MS. COOPER: Q. So is there -A. It may exist.

Q. -- research confirming the opposite? A. It may exist -Q. That -A. -- but I am -- I'm unaware of it. Q. You've -- you've not -- I thought you've written about that yourself then, no? A. I've written about religious influences on, you know, perceptions of family well-being and things like that but not about sort of, generally speaking, child developmental outcomes. I've studied influence of religiousness on child -- adolescent sexual decision-making and things like that, but if you're talking about sort of, you know, whether somebody is employed as an adult or whether they are reflecting negatively on their relationship with their mother, I have not evaluated that kind of information. Q. Uh-huh. What about educational attainment, right? I -- I'm -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- I'm looking at a -- a paper you wrote on religion and positive adolescent outcomes. A. Right. (Page 29) Q. Does that -- that one ring a bell? A. It does. It's been a while but, yes. Q. Yeah. And -- and we can take it out and take a look at it but there's a passage that I just want to read first about disparities in educational attainment based on religion. Is that -- is there data on that that you have found? A. Yes. You'd have to clarify what you mean by "religion." That's kind of a broad topic. Q. Uh-huh. A. I usually evaluate religiosity, function of religious service attendance, personal religious salience, religious affiliation, so just to say religion is kind of a lump sum, I mean, but there has been research on religion and education. MS. COOPER: Carole, why don't we take out document number 9 and just mark it as an exhibit so we have that? MS. STANYAR: Okay. This is "Religion and Positive Adolescent" -- is that what you're -MS. COOPER: Uh-huh. MS. STANYAR: Yeah. COURT REPORTER: Does she want it 2? MS. STANYAR: It's -- but -- what are we going to call this, Number 2, or are we going to call (Page 30) it 9? How about -- do you want to call it 9? MS. COOPER: Let's call it 2. MS. STANYAR: Call it 2. MS. COOPER: Two, uh-huh. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 9:37 a.m. COURT REPORTER: There you go. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MS. COOPER: Let me know when you have that in front of the witness. MS. HEYSE: He has it in front of him. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Dr. Regnerus, did you write this -A. I did. Q. -- paper? A. Ten plus years ago.

Q. Okay. If you can turn to page 400. A. Uh-huh. Q. The second full paragraph, and read along: "Another study of educational attainment among American women compared outcomes across twelve religious groups . . . While the authors' choice of measuring 'religious traditionalism' based on denominational identities is certainly subject to (Page 31) . . . criticism, the study deserves mention here. Substantial percentages of young women (aged 18-24) had embarked upon higher education, ranging as high as 73 percent for Jewish women and as low as 26 percent for Pentecostal women." So is that -- as far as you know, is that still correct? Is that an accurate description of the data? A. I mean, that particular data set, which is -- it looks like it's, what, at least 18 years old? Q. Uh-huh. Okay. A. I would expect that it might have narrowed a little bit but it -- it seems fairly accurate. Q. Uh-huh. MS. HEYSE: Excuse me, Leslie. Before you go any further, I just want to make a note on the record that the markings on this exhibit are have been made by Plaintiff's counsel. MS. COOPER: Yeah. Sorry. Those are -- actually, I don't know where those marking were made. They were in our copy so -MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: -- let's -- let's disregard them. Absolutely. I understand they're not your markings. Thank you. (Page 32) BY MS. COOPER: Q. So going back to educational level and income level of family, and you -- you mention that there are disparities, that children tend to flourish more with higher-educated parents and higher-income families. Do you know whether -- how significant those disparities are? Can you quantity that in any way for me? A. I cannot. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So you don't know whether, for example, the disparities are greater or lesser than the disparity you found in your NSFF between the gay mother group -- and I'm using just the lingo from your paper -- disparity between the gay mother group and the intact biological family group? A. Right. I -- I cannot. The study purported to document differences but not concern itself with the magnitude of those differences. Q. Uh-huh. You're saying your study, the NSFF? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. So am I right that -- well, do you -- do you favor excluding low educated people from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I do not.(Page 33) BY MS. COOPER: Q. What about low-income people? MS. HEYSE: Same objection. THE WITNESS: I do not. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So it's not your opinion that groups who are known to have children that, on average, have poorer outcomes should be excluded from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection. He -- asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Could you restate that again? BY MS. COOPER:

Q. Sure. It -- I'll -- I'll ask it in the affirmative to make it clearer. Is it your opinion that groups that are known to raise children who, on average, have poorer outcomes should be excluded from marriage? A. I -- I -- I do not wish to exclude them. I think that's -- I'm getting caught up -Q. I'm sorry. I didn't -- I didn't hear your answer. A. I do not wish to exclude them. Q. Okay. So you -- but you favor excluding same-sex couples from marriage because their -- their children may have poorer outcomes than children of opposite-sex couples, but you don't favor excluding the groups that (Page 34) are -- that are known to have worse outcomes? MS. HEYSE: Objection. That mischaracterizes his testimony. He's never stated that he dis -- that he wants to exclude same-sex marriage. MS. COOPER: He's never stated that he wants to exclude same-sex couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Not in his testimony today. He said that he's not a fan of it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Well, all right. I'll -- I'll ask that. Do you favor continuing the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage? A. I say -- in the report I said I think it's within the-- the state's prudent judgment to support the form of marriage that leads to the widest flourishing of children insofar as you encourage the formation of permanent faithful ties that foster and encourage the development of children, and where kinship is reduced on purpose, I think that is against states' prudent judgment to -- to encourage. Q. So -- so you do favor keeping marriage as as limited to a man and a woman? A. I do. Q. Okay. So then going back to my question, do I (Page 35) understand correctly that you favor excluding same-sex couples from marriage -- or I should say -- I'll ask it differently. You favor limiting marriage to different-sex couples because children of same-sex couples may have poorer outcomes than children of different-sex couples, but you don't favor excluding groups whose children are known to have poorer outcomes; is that right? A. I think that's correct. That's a -Q. Okay. Now -MS. HEYSE: No, he wasn't quite finished, Leslie. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'm sorry. A. If you would restate that. I mean, I feel like I'm -- you're talking a lot and I'm not talking much at all. Could you restate that? Q. I'll -- I'll have to ask it again. Is it -- you is it true that you favor limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and not extending it to same-sex couples because children of same-sex couples may have worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex couples, but you don't favor excluding groups who's children are known to have worse outcomes? MS. HEYSE: Well, objection. The question (Page 36) is vague. What groups are we talking about that are known to have worse outcomes? MS. COOPER: Okay. Well, let's -- let's put in there low-income and low-educated families. MS. HEYSE: And I'll -- just for the record, it's a compound question. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Go ahead. A. My recommendation is that I favor marriage that fosters biological kinship ties between mothers, fathers and children. Q. Okay. So -- so it's -- so your preference or your position in support of limiting marriage to opposite-

sex couples is based on supporting the biological kinship ties, not based on the fact that there may be poorer child development outcomes in same-sex parent families; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, mischaracterizes his testimony. THE WITNESS: My testimony here concerns the documentation of differences between children who parents have had same-sex relationships and children who grow up with stably intact biological families. I didn't come here to -- to -- to justify an opinion about same-sex marriage based on data or opinion but (Page 37) to talk about what I found in the studies. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. So your -- your study you don't think is evidence to support limiting marriage to heterosexual couples? A. I think the study reinforces the wisdom of states seeking to do what they can to foster the stable, faithful connection between men, women and children. Q. Uh-huh. Let me just ask one last question on this point. If there were population-based research finding that outcomes for children raised in low-educated or low-income parent families were the same as or worse than outcomes for children with same-sex couples, would you support excluding loweducated and low-income couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I confess I haven't thought much about that. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Oh. So you might? A. It's possible. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So I would like to go back to your report, paragraph 63. (Page 38) THE WITNESS: Did she say 63? MS. COOPER: Okay. MS. HEYSE: Was that six-three? MS. COOPER: Yes. MS. HEYSE: Okay. If you could identify the numbers, Leslie, it would be helpful. MS. COOPER: Oh, did I not say it? I'm sorry if I didn't -THE WITNESS: I didn't hear it. MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: -- say it out loud. Yeah, paragraph 63, page 17. MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: We got that? MS. HEYSE: Yes. Thank you. MS. COOPER: All right. MS. HEYSE: And if you could read a little bit slower for the court reporter, please. MS. COOPER: Sure. MS. HEYSE: Thank you. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And if you'll read along with me, it says: "With so many significant outstanding questions about whether children develop as well in same-sex households as in opposite-sex (Page 39) households, it remains prudent for government to continue to recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman, thereby promoting what is known to be an ideal environment for raising children." A. Uh-huh. Q. Do same-sex couples have children either through adoption or assisted reproduction in states where they can't marry?

A. I believe they do. Q. And does excluding same-sex couples from marriage prevent same-sex couples from having children in these ways? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I don't believe it does. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Do you have any nationally representative data or any data, for that matter, showing that allowing same-sex couples to marry reduces the number of children who are raised in heterosexual biological parent families? A. I'm not aware that that data exists. Q. Okay. So do you know whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage actually does anything to promote what you call the ideal environment for children? (Page 40) MS. HEYSE: Objection, outside the scope. THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that? BY MS. COOPER: Q. Sure. Do you know whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage actually does anything to promote what you consider to be the ideal environment for children? A. I do not know. Q. All right. Now, I want to talk about what I think you call reduced kinship or diminished kinship, and I want to make sure I understand what you mean by that. Does that mean a -- a lack or a genetic biological relationship? A. Lack of a -Q. Is that how you're using those terms? A. A genetic tie between mother, father and child. Q. Gotcha. Okay. So your -- one of your opinions is that -- am I right, that genetically related parents or biologically related parents pose a lower risk to children than parents who are not biologically related; is that right? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And if you can turn to paragraph 9 where you're discussing that topic -- paragraph 9 is on page 3 -- you cite in footnote 5 to a study by Joseph Henrich, (Page 41) et al -- that's H-E-N-R-I-C-H -- referencing findings about risk of abuse, neglect and homicide; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now, the Henrich study was comparing polygamy to monogamy, right? Am I understanding that right? A. The Henrich study was about, yeah, monogamy. The reference that he makes to the quote here about the 2.4 times and the 15 and 77 times, the first of those studies that he's referencing is to a very large federal study about victims, I believe child victims of homicide. Q. Uh-huh. A. I think he calls it filicide or something like that. Q. And he's talking about stepparents, right, in that study? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And in paragraph 28 you say -- that's on page 7. MS. HEYSE: Give us a minute. MS. COOPER: Sure. MS. HEYSE: Okay. Okay.

MS. COOPER: Got it? All right. MS. HEYSE: Yup. Thank you. (Page 42) BY MS. COOPER: Q. You say, "Yet every child born to a couple via ART" -- and let me just step back. Do you mean assisted reproductive technology there? A. I do. Q. Okay. So I will -- I'll start again. "Yet every child born to a couple via ART or assisted reproductive technology (a 'planned' gay or lesbian family) retains at least one 'step' parent, suggesting the more favorable comparison group would not be the biologically-intact, mother-father households but heterosexual stepfamilies." So does that -- do I understand correctly that you would -- you're saying you would expect that the poorer outcomes seen among heterosexual stepfamilies would be expected in planned, gay-parent families formed through assisted reproductive technology? A. I don't think we know that. What I'm saying is that since there's diminished kinship, there's basically a stepparent -- at least one stepparent in an ART family, so it makes more sense to compare them to heterosexual stepfamilies, although even here most heterosexual stepfamilies are blended families and (Page 43) they're not planned in the sense of using ART. Q. Uh-huh. Gotcha. A. But in terms of -Q. So would the most analogous group to compare let me -- let me start that over. Would the most directly analogous comparison group be heterosexual couples who have children via ART? A. I suspect it would. Q. Are you familiar with the research on children conceived through ART using donor egg or sperm with a heterosexual- or gay-parent family? A. I don't believe there's any population-based data doing that. Q. Are you aware of any research looking at such family? A. I'm not. It may exist. Q. Okay. So do you know whether the nonbiological parent in -- for shorthand, why don't -- is it okay with you to refer to them as donor insemination families? Is that a term you're -- you understand? A. Yeah. That's -- that's not the -- go ahead. Q. Do nonbiological parents in donor insemination families pose an increased risk of abuse, neglect or homicide compared to two-biological-parent families; do you know? (Page 44) A. Could you restate that once more? Q. Sure. Do you know whether the nonbiological parent in donor insemination families pose an increased risk of abuse, neglect or homicide compared to two-biological-parent families? A. I'm not sure it's documented. Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. A. I'm not sure that it is documented. Q. Okay. You -- you just don't know the answer to that? A. I don't. Q. Okay. And do you know whether the research on donor-insemination families show -- excuse me. Sorry. I'll restart that again. Got a technological blip here. Okay. Does the research on donorinsemination -- sorry, one more technological blip. Lights keep going off on me. All right. Does the research on donor-insemination families show poorer -- poorer child outcomes for children conceived through donor insemination compared to children raised by twobiological-parents families? A. I'm -- I'm -- as I said before, I'm unaware of population-based studies on this subject.

Q. Okay. I'm -- I'm sorry. Let me -- let me ask it again. (Page 45) Are you aware of any evidence at all indicating whether children in donor-insemination families have poorer child -- child outcomes than children in two-biological-parent families? A. Well, I do know that, you know, the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study is a nonprobability sample that started with a -- a pool of parents who I believe were pregnant via ART -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and they have published 19 different papers comparing that pool of kids, as they grew up, with different kind of samples, some probability-based samples, but mostly not or some with no -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- comparison at all, but that probability sample was based on people's voluntary participation and interest in the study where they learned about the study in lesbian bookstores in Boston, San Francisco and Washington, so it is very difficult -- in fact, it is impossible -- to know how representative they are of the population of all same-sex couples who have a child via ART. Q. Let me ask it different. Are you aware of any data showing poorer outcomes for children conceived by donor insemination, whether in gay- or (Page 46) heterosexual-parent families, compared to twobiological-parent families? MS. HEYSE: Objection. I believe that's been asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I'm unaware of probability-based data about that. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So you're not aware of any studies, probability based or otherwise, showing poorer outcomes for kids of donor-insemination families compared to two-biological-parent families? MS. HEYSE: Again, objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I said I'm not aware of any probability based. I identified that the NLLFS studies are nonprobability-based samples of such children. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. A. But I've also -- I've talked about in my report -Q. Right. A. -- and in my other articles that it's impossible to know how representative that sample is of the population of children born via ART in same-sex couples as a whole. (Page 47) Q. Uh-huh. I -- I think the part I'm focusing on may be -- let me make sure you get the focus of my question. I -- I'm looking for whether you know data, whether or not you think it's good data or not, showing poorer outcomes; not whether there is data at all, but any data showing poorer outcomes for children conceived by donor insemination versus two-biological-parent families? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I know the NLLFS has examined lots of different outcomes. I couldn't tell you if they were all poorer or all better or they were all equivalent. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. A. They have lots of different studies comparing lots of different samples but, really, you cannot statistically compare a nonprobability-based sample with a probability-based sample. You can't even get estimates -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- of standard errors that make sense because the very act of statistical estimation suggests you're approximating an underlying population average, and they don't know - (Page 48) Q. Uh-huh.

A. -- the underlying population average because they didn't collect their data randomly. Q. So is it fare to say at this point we don't know whether children raised by donor-inseminat -- sorry. Is it your view that we don't know yet whether children conceived by donor insemination fare any worse than children raised by two biological parents? A. That is probably accurate. Q. Okay. Now, in -- in stepfamilies, what -- you refer to them often being blended families versus planned. By that you mean they're a new person coming into the family? Do I understand that right? A. Blended, you mean? Q. Yeah. A. Right. The -- the creation of a new household out of two previous failed unions. Q. Gotcha. So in stepfamilies, as that term is promptly understood between heterosexuals, is it true that it's often proceeded by divorce? A. Divorce or the failure of a -- of a union of some sort. Q. Uh-huh. And is it right that divorce is associated with poorer child outcome? A. Generally. (Page 49) Q. Uh-huh. And do you know whether -- when researchers who are looking at stepfamilies, when they use the term, "biological parent," is that typically used to distinguish between parent and stepparent? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: My knowledge of that suggests that some do not distinguish between biological parents and some don't, so not all of them use it in a consistent manner. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Gotcha. Okay. So -- so in some studies, the term, "biological parent" -- sorry. Let me ask it differently. In some studies, looking at stepfamily life, the term, "biological parent" might include adoptive families; is that right? A. From what I -MS. HEYSE: Again, objection; calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: From my read of it, that's apparently true. That's not how I characterized it in NFSS. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear the last part that you (Page 50) said. A. In NFSS I categorized them differently. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. You had talked a little before about the research on adoptive families. Do you know whether adoptive parents pose an increased risk of abuse, neglect and homicide compared to biological parents? A. My understanding is that they don't necessarily cause a higher risk themselves, but that children who are adopted tend to display less optimal outcomes, on average, compared to children who are not adopted. Q. Okay. So it -- so it -- it sounds like you're saying there's two different categories. There's the parents' risk of abusing or neglecting or killing the child is one thing, but the other thing would be the child outcomes apart from the parents' behavior; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And your understanding is that adoptive parents don't pose a risk of those kinds of abusiveness, neglectful or homicidal? A. I'm not going to -Q. I mean, they're -- they're biological parents, but the child outcomes in adoptive families are poorer than in biological-parent families? (Page 51) A. I'm not going to conclude that. I -- I do know that data from the Add Health project, the National

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, evaluated children who were -- I believe they were adopted by strangers versus -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- versus biological parents and documented numerous differences. I do know that they were not able to take account of when the child was adopted, and they noted that that tended to be a significant or a a likely important phenomenon, but I couldn't tell you that, you know, there's no difference in parental behavior whether -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- they were adopted before age 2 or adopted at age12. Q. Uh-huh. A. There may well be. Q. Okay. Are you aware of research showing that adoptive parents invest as much as or more in their children than biological-parent families? A. I -- I do know that -- that one of the references in that monogamy study that you mentioned earlier -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- I'm looking it up -- noted that -- in their study, (Page 52) and I -- I believe that one was not a probability sample but I'm not sure. That was -- that was if you'd wait just a second, I'll get the author's correct name. Henrichs. In the -- Henrich cites a study where he found that parents invested more time and their -- yet their children -- the adopted they invested more time in adopted children but yet, on average, those children were less likely to thrive than their biological children. Q. Uh-huh. A. I don't believe it was a probability-based sample he was citing, and that -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- was one example of the studies he was talking about. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And is it your understanding that the reason that the kids in adoptive families don't thrive as well is the preadoption experience they may have had? A. You know, I'm not sure that's been clearly documented. In the Add Health study that I referenced, they, so far as I recall, left that as a bit of a black box saying it's not entirely clear, especially if you adopt somebody by age two, why there might be suboptimal outcomes. (Page 53) Q. Okay. Okay. Now, so you -- you point to the risk of abuse in stepfamilies as evidence that reduced kinship or -- or lack of biological relationship with one parent is potentially harmful to children, so I want to just ask; do you favor prohibiting remarriage by people who already have children? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I have not thought about that so I have no opinion on that. BY MS. COOPER: Q. You have no opinion. Okay. You don't have an opinion about whether heterosexuals who have children from a prior relationship should be allowed to get married? MS. HEYSE: Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I -- I don't think about it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Huh. So you have no opinion? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, I think you mentioned earlier -- I think I took a note. Let's see. Apparently not. Well, I -I -- I'm sorry that I don't recall if you already hit this but -- so I'll just ask. Is it your understanding that assisted reproduction involving donor sperm or ova is -- is more commonly used by heterosexual couples than same-sex couples (Page 54)

A. You're asking me if it's my opinion that it's more commonly used by heterosexual couples? Q. Right. A. Yeah. As a share of the population, I suspect that is true. Q. Uh-huh. And you consider sperm donation or ova donation an example of broken kinship ties that would-- that you consider harmful to children; is that right? A. Broken kinship would involve sort of how -- whom these things come from, right? That's why I said some -- some examples of surrogacy, you know, where a woman may carry a biological child of two other parents, a mother and a father, and then you have examples of -- I mean, some of it involves greater kinship disparity than others, basically, just as a matter of observation. Q. Uh-huh. So taking the example of -- say a heterosexual married couple wants to have children but, say, the husband is -- is unable to -- he doesn't have viable sperm and they use a sperm donor. Is that an example -- and they have a child. Is that an example of a -- a broken kinship tie? A. In this case it would be true. Q. Yeah. Do you have concerns about broken ties through (Page 55) use of donor egg or sperm whether used by heterosexual couples or -- or same-sex couples? A. Generally, I think states ought to encourage child rearing by biological parents wherever possible. Q. Uh-huh. Do you think it should be prohibited, the use of donor sperm or eggs? A. I have no opinion on that. Q. I'm sorry? A. I have no formed opinion of that. Q. Okay. But the concerns you have about the broken kinship in same-sex-parent families planned same-sex-parent families using assisted reproduction, do those exist for -- do you have the same concerns about heterosexual families who form or have children through donor sperm too? A. I mean, by the book, they would have the same diminished kinship. Q. Uh-huh. So -- so -- so that's about a yes; you would be concerned about those kind of family arrangements too? A. It's not so much a matter of my concern. It's a matter of -- so -- I'm stating that there is diminished kinship there and diminished kinship historically proposes a risk. Q. Uh-huh. And so it's true diminished kin kinship (Page 56) poses a risk whether it's same-sex parents or heterosexual parents? A. I don't know if that's true. I mean, I'm not sure it's been evaluated, but I know that diminished kinship poses a risk and those are examples of diminished kinship. Q. Uh-huh. Meaning that there hasn't been population-based studies documenting or testing whether the outcomes are -- are different? Is that what you mean? A. I'm unaware of any. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. The big issue is -- is the same whether it's a same-sex or different-sex couple, that there's diminished kinship when one of the parents is not biologically related to the child; is that right? A. Technically, that is correct. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, I want to talk a little bit about the NFSS -- and for the record, that's the -- Dr. Regnerus' study that he discussed in his report, among others. Dr. Regnerus, do you think you can draw conclusions about the stability of same-sex-couple relationships from your NFSS data? A. You can draw some conclusions about it by looking at the household calendars -Q. Uh-huh. (Page 57) A. -- which is where respondents told us who was living with them in the household at each year of their lives. Q. Uh-huh.

A. Now -Q. Uh-huh. And -- and what conclusions can you can you draw based on that in terms of comparative stability of same-sex and different-sex-couple relationships? A. Well, I compared them to a variety of different opposite-sex-couple types of relationships, not just them as a lump sum. There was notable instability in the households of respondents who said they had their parent, mother or father, had had a same-sex relationship. Q. But that instability wasn't necessarily the instability of a same-sex couple, right? It was it was often that a child had been a product of a failed heterosexual union; is that right? A. That was the modal means by which they came into to being, so far as I could tell. Eighty -Q. But from your -A. -- eighty -- so -Q. Sorry. Go ahead. A. We documented 175 cases of respondents who said their (Page 58) mother had had a same-sex relationship with another woman at some point while they were growing up, and of that 175, I believe 85 said that they had lived with their mother and her partner in the household for at least a portion of one year. I believe 31 of those 85 lived with their mother and her partner for a portion of a year. Twenty lived with them for a couple years. I believe there was five that lived with her mother and her partner for three years. If I recall, there was eight who lived with their mother and a partner for four years. And there was, I think, a total of 19 or 20 who lived with her mother and her partner for more than five years, and only 2 who spent their entire growing up years with their mother and her partner. Q. Uh-huh. A. So it is an indicator of -- that the romantic relationship of which the respondent spoke was was likely not long-lasting in terms of years and years and years in the case of most of them. Q. Well -- well, if you had a -- a respondent who's parents divorced -- heterosexual parents divorced when they were ten, and then had -- was in mom's custody, and then when they were, you know, 15, mom had a same-sex partner so they lived the next three years of (Page 59) their childhood with mom and her partner, that doesn't indicate instability on the part of the same-sex couple, does it? A. It indicates instability in the household. It depends on when the -- the household relationship with the same-sex partner occurred. Yeah, we don't know whether that relationship is ongoing -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- because we stopped collecting data about who lived in their mother's household with -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- you know, after age 18. Q. Uh-huh. A. Presumably, the child left the household at that point or shortly thereafter so the -Q. Is it right that we don't know if the instability was due to the breakup of the same-sex-couple relationship or something preceding the same-sex-couple relationship formation? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: It is discernible from the household calendars case by case if you -BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. (Page 60) A. -- dig into the data. Q. But not as a -- a group? A. Not as a group. Q. Now, you recognize, right, that when -- when sampling young-adult children of gay and lesbian

people, that -- that many have experienced heterosexual divorce in the past after that parent coming out as -- as gay or lesbian, right? A. I'm aware of it. Q. Yeah. And the -- and that is likely the situation of -- of many of the people in the NFSS; is that right? A. I'm not sure about divorce but it was -- as I mentioned earlier, over half of them were the product of a failed union -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- between their biological mother and father. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And -- and given the era in which the kids grew up because, right, they're -- they're up 20 to age 39, so these kids were growing up, right, in the '70s, '80s; is that right? A. I -- I said in the -- either in the report or the study I kind of outlined the -- the -- the boundaries around it. I mean, they could be as old as 39 or as young as 18 when they're answering the questions. (Page 61) Q. Uh-huh. A. And then you can kind of extrapolate from there how old their parents might be, right, so the parents -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- probably could be in their -- as young as their upper 30s to as old as 80 or something. Q. Yeah. And in -- in terms of the period of time they were spending, if they were 18 to 39, is it right that -- that that's an era you've said in which same-sex relationships with children were less common than they are today? A. Yes, correct. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and that a -- a number of those families may be families where the parents entered into a heterosexual relationship and then later came out as gay or lesbian and that's what caused the divorce; is that right? A. That I don't make much speculation about, but I do say that more than half the time we knew that they had lived with their biological mother and father -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- when they were born. Q. Gotcha. So you -- you also point to a Scandinavian study by Anderson on the question of stability of same-sex-couple relationships and -- let me just find (Page 62) where that is in your report. Well -- oh, here we are, page 12, paragraph 46, it looks like where you get in to it. And then in that paragraph you give the figures from -- that in Sweden, 30 percent of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within six years of formation compared to 20 percent for male marriages and 13 percent for heterosexual ones. Now, in that study were they marriages or were they registered partnerships? A. According to the article, they described them as marriages. I have heard rumors that they were something different, but this is the -- I'm quoting from the study itself. Q. Okay. Gotcha. Now -- so in your view, is a a 20 percent or 30 percent six-year divorce rate a level of instability that would suggest precluding a group from marriage? A. I don't usually think about it like that. I just note that that's fairly elevated compared to the heterosexual -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- ones. Q. Do you happen to know what the six-year -- or roughly six-year divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the US is? (Page 63)

A. Not offhand I don't. I could -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- estimate it with the National Study of Family Growth. Q. Uh-huh. Do you know if it's comparable to the Swedish data or different? A. My guess would be that it is lower than 30 to 20 percent. I don't know what the overall estimate is in Sweden -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- I just know that they broke it down according to type. Q. Yeah. Well, they -- they reported 13 percent heterosexual divorce rate in Sweden. Do you know if in the US it's comparable or different? A. By six years out? Q. Yeah. A. I -- I couldn't honestly tell you exact -- and I I would want to tell you the right number. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Now, is it right that among heterosexual couples women are more likely than men to initiate divorce? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And did I read correctly somewhere, 70 percent of divorces in the US are filed by women; is that (Page 64) right? A. It has not been documented with population-based data so far as I know. It's been estimated as such -Q. Okay. A. -- but I would like to see population-based data, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, but I have heard roughly 60 to 75 percent. Q. Okay. And -- and is it your view that the greater breakup rate among lesbians compared to gay men and heterosexual couples is due to gender as opposed to sexual orientation? A. I have stated that before and it's my suspicion that that is the case. Q. Okay. MS. HEYSE: Leslie, I don't know how much -MS. COOPER: Did -MS. HEYSE: -- I don't know how much further you have but we're close to a -- we've got five minutes before we need to take a break for the tape so I don't MS. COOPER: Oh, okay. MS. HEYSE: -- if you want to get -MS. COOPER: You know what? I think I can do one quickly little line of questions before that. MS. HEYSE: Okay. (Page 65) MS. COOPER: But thank you. MS. HEYSE: Uh-huh. BY MS. COOPER: Q. In the same part of the report -- let me just point you more specifically. Oh, in paragraph 46 you talk about data from the UK's Office for National Statistics -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- showing that the lesbian breakup rate was nearly twice that seen among gay-male couples. Question for you: Did -- didn't that data also show that same-sex couples as a group had greater stability than heterosexual married couples? A. I -- I want to say Rosenfeld's report might have said that but I have not verified that independently. It may be true. Q. Have you read the report from the UK?

A. I'm sorry? Q. Have you read the report from the UK that you cited? A. I read through reports in the -- from UK for for this statistic. Q. Uh-huh. And it was footnote 20 that you cite to -A. Right. Q. -- to a website with that data? A. Right. (Page 66) Q. You have read that but -- but you don't know whether -- how -- how they compare gay and lesbian couples as a group compared to heterosexual couples? A. Right. I don't recall. I may have said it, but the point in making that paragraph was to continue a line of inquiry about comparing female relationships with male relationships. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. But you don't know whether, in the UK, lesbian and gay couples as a group did better or worse in stability than heterosexual couples? A. I did not inquire. MS. COOPER: Okay. All right. Why don't we break now for the break? VIDEO TECHNICIAN: All right, standby. It is 10:20 a.m. We are off the record for a media change. (Recess was taken at 10:20 a.m.) (Back on the record at 10:30 a.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 10:30 a.m. We are back on the record. MS. COOPER: Great, thanks. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I want to ask you a little bit about the Michael Rosenfeld study that you discuss in paragraph 48 of your report. (Page 67) A. Uh-huh. Q. Let's turn to that. And it's the study that he presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Do you have that there? A. I -- I'm aware that I -- I don't have a copy with me. Q. No, but -- I'm sorry. You have -- you've got the report opened to paragraph 48? A. I do. Q. Okay. And you talk about -- you say: "Lesbian couples reported higher relationship satisfaction alongside higher break-up rates." I have a question for you. Do you have a sense of how big the disparity was from -- in the Rosenfeld data between lesbians and other groups? A. Not offhand I don't recall. I'd have to make reference to the -- the conference paper. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay. And did he find any difference in stability between gay male couples and heterosexual married couples? A. Did he? Q. In -- in that paper? A. Again, I -- I don't recall. He may not have. I'm not sure. I know -- I know that he noted the the highest rate of dissolution was lesbian couples. Q. Okay. I want to go back real quick to a topic we were (Page 68) discussing before. I had asked you if there were population-based research finding that outcomes for children in low-income or low-educatedparents families were the same or worse than outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples, would you support excluding those groups from marriage, and I recall you said you -- you didn't know. You might. You hadn't thought about that; is that right? A. I -- I -- I doubt I would -- I mean, that was a mouthful of a sentence. Could -- could you state it again?

Q. Yeah. I'll just ask it again. Sure. If there were population-based research finding that outcomes for children raised by low-income or low-educated parents were the same or worse than outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples, would you favor excluding low-income or low-educated couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. BY MS. COOPER: Q. You think you don't believe you would favor excluding those groups? A. I wouldn't favor -- who's the comparison again? Could you clarify that for me? (Page 69) Q. Sure. A. Low-income -Q. If population-based research finding that outcomes for children raised by low-educated parents or low-income parents -- sorry. Let me read that again. If there were population-based research that outcomes for children raised by low-income parents or low-educated parents were the same, were worse, than outcomes by children raised by same-sex couples, would you support excluding low-income or low-educated parents -- couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, they have multiples. This has been asked and answered. It's a compound question. If you want to break it down by individual groups, you can do that. MS. COOPER: That's a good idea. Sure. BY MS. COOPER: Q. If there were population-based research finding that outcomes for children raised by low-educated couples fare -- were the same or worse than outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples, would you favor excluding that group from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. And, again, it calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I have no interest in altering (Page 70) the -- the boundaries of marriage. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So that's a no? A. Correct. Q. And -- and the same question: If -- if there were population-based research finding outcomes for children raised by low-income -- I think -- low-income parents were the same or worse than outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples, would you support excluding low-income couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I believe I gave my answer in the last question. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Did I repeat low income in both? Apologies. What about low-educated parents? Would you support excluding low-educated parents in that circumstance? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I don't recommend altering the -- the boundaries of marriage. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So the answer is no? MS. HEYSE: He's answered the question, (Page 71) Counsel. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'm asking, is -- is the answer to that question no? MS. HEYSE: And he's answered the question, Counsel. MS. STANYAR: And no. He has to answer yes or no.

BY MS. COOPER: Q. Yeah, go ahead. A. I -- I don't recommend altering the boundaries of marriage. Q. So you -- there's some reason you don't want to say no to that question? A. No. I just -- I think that implies it. Q. Okay. And -- and then, finally, the same question: If there were population-based research national that outcomes for children raised by African-American parents were the same or worse than outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples, would you favor excluding African-American couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I would repeat the same thing as I did -- the answer to your last question. (Page 72) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. You would not favor that exclusion? A. Correct. Q. Okay. But I want to now go back to what we were just talking about before, couple's stability, the topic of couple's stability. Is it true that there are differences in divorce rates associated with race? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and can you give us an idea of how significant the disparities are? A. There are distinctions both in rates of union formation and union dissolution. Q. Uh-huh. A. Yes, with respect to African Americans, we know that they have higher rates of childbearing out of -outside the marital union and higher rate of divorceamong those who have married. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and focusing -- I appreciate you breaking down those two separate points. Focusing on the -- on the latter, the divorce data, do you knowif, for example, African Americans have twice the divorce rate as, say, white people or Asian Americans? A. I wouldn't want -MS. HEYSE: Objection. It's outside thescope of Dr. Regnerus' report. (Page 73) THE WITNESS: I don't know exactly the --the statistic. I know it is significantly different from white Americans' divorce rates, but I wouldn't want to give you a statistic without documenting it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. And is it true that interracial couples are -- are at a higher risk of divorce than same-race couples? A. I believe -MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I believe that is true. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. And are there differences in divorce rates associated with income level? A. Modestly, yes, I believe so. Q. Uh-huh. What about education level of the spouses, are there differences in divorce rates? MS. HEYSE: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: I'm less familiar with educational distinctions. So far as I can tell, that is changing over time as fewer less-educated people marry than in the past. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. And what about interfaith couples, are they at higher risk of divorce than couples of the same (Page 74) faith? A. Again, I'm not exactly certain about that. I have heard rumors of it. I think I've read about it, but I -- I

couldn't tell you. I -- I -- I suspect it's statistically significant. Q. I'm sorry. Could -- you -- you drifted off. You suspect -A. I think it's a statistically significant difference but it's not something I have studied. Q. And what about individuals who marry below the age of 20; is that associated with elevated divorce rates? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: It is. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. Is it -- can you -- can you sort of -- I know this is a topic you've -- you've -- you've written about. A. Uh-huh. Q. Can you quantify how significant that disparity is? A. I think it was data from the National Study of Family Growth suggests that men who marry at 18, I think by five or six years out, I think they're -- no, I'm sorry -- about -- about ten years out, I think their dissolution rate is roughly 50 to 60 percent. Women who marry at 18 exhibit a lower dissolution rate than (Page 75) that but there are gender distinctions in those rates, but I know they are higher among 18and 19-year-olds than they are above 20. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and just for sake of comparison, you gave a -- you said for men who marry at age 18, that ten years out the dissolution rate is between 50 and 60 percent. What would be the dissolution rate ten years out for, you know, older groups who marry? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I think it would be in the -- ten years out? I'm trying to recall a figure that I once generated. It's certainly lower than 50 to 60 percent. I believe it is well under 40 percent. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. A. But men and women display distinctions in their dissolution risk -- their ten-year dissolution risk. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Do you know if, for example, African Americans have a higher or lower dissolution rate than same-sex couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: Union or marriage? BY MS. COOPER: Q. Let's say marriage. A. I don't believe that's known. (Page 76) Q. Okay. What about interracial couples, is that known? A. Interracial? Q. Let me ask you a complete question. Sorry. Do you know if interracial couples have a higher or lower divorce rate than same-sex couples? A. Again, I don't think that's known. Q. Okay. And what about people who marry at age 18 or 19? Do we know if they have a higher or lower divorce rate than same-sex couples? A. I'm going to say the same thing because I don't think we know the marriage dissolution rates of samesex couples -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- in the United States using population-based data. It's fairly new. Q. So it is unknown as of now? A. So far as I'm aware.

Q. Okay. So do we know whether being a same-sex couple is as strong a predictor of dissolution as, say, race? A. Are you talking about married couples? Q. Yes. A. Again, we don't have population-based data on same-sex marriage longevity in the United States. Q. So we -- we just don't know yet? A. I believe that's true. (Page 77) Q. Okay. And is that true if you were to compare sex orientation as a predictor of marriage breakup to, you know, marrying at the age 18 or 19 as a predictor of marriage breakup, do we know which is a stronger predictor? A. If we're talking about marriage breakup, I repeat my answer that we don't have population-based data on marriage dissolution among same-sex couples in the United States. Q. So -- so, again, same answer; we just don't we don't know that yet? A. Correct. Q. If there were population-based data showing that, say, African Americans had a comparable or a higher divorce rate than same-sex couples, would you favor excluding African Americans from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation, not relevant. THE WITNESS: As I said earlier, I have no interest in moving the boundaries of marriage. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I -- I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Can you say that again? A. As I mentioned earlier, I have no interest in adjusting the boundaries of marriage. (Page 78) Q. So -- so rather than ask you these questions over and over, is it fare to say that whatever the data would show on breakup rates or marriage dissolution rates of other groups compared to same-sex couples, that would not lead you to favor excluding any other groups from marriage; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation, vague. THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- I don't know what my opinion would be after new, large population-based data would emerge, but I haven't given it a whole lot of thought. It doesn't exist. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. All right. You know, I want to make sure I understand because I -- I -- I'm not sure I am understanding what your view is on this. If there were population-based -- I -- I thought you had said earlier on the issue of child outcomes that if there were population-based studies showing comparable or worse outcomes among, say, African Americans compared to same-sex-parent couples, that you still would not favor altering the definition of mar -- of marriage to exclude African Americans from marriage; is that -- was that right? A. I did say that. (Page 79) Q. Yeah. And then if we take away -- if we move away from the topic of child outcomes and focus now on couples' stability as a separate issue, if you had population-based data showing that marriages of same-sex couples were -- let me -- let me do it differently. If you had population-based data showing that marriages of, say, African-American couples were more likely to break up than marriages of samesex couples, would you favor excluding African Americans from marriage and altering the definition of mar or the -- the limitations of marriage? MS. HEYSE: And again, Counsel, asked and answered, and calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I believe I answered that already, didn't I? BY MS. COOPER: Q. Well, I -- I heard two different answers and I'm not sure which one is -- is what you meant, so I want

to make sure we're on the same page. A. When I said I haven't thought about, it's be -- I said I haven't thought about an opinion formed after population-based longitudinal data collection comparing same-sex married couples because that hasn't -(Page 80) Q. Uh-huh. A. -- occurred in the United States yet and I wouldn't know what my opinion would be after it occurred. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So -- so I -- I think I understand. So you're saying if -- if there were such populationbased data, sitting here now, if the if the population-based data showed, for example, African Americans had a higher breakup rather than same-sex couples in terms of marriage, the -- you might or you might not favor excluding African Americans from marriage; you just don't know because that data doesn't exist? A. I don't think I would start excluding populations who've previously been understood to marry. It --I -I -- I couldn't speculate about what my thinking may be five or ten years from now after longitudinal data that does not yet exist occurs. I would have to -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- be consulted in five or ten years. At present, I don't anticipate -- I mean, I -- I -- I'm not interested in moving the boundaries. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and so at present, even if the data did show that the divorce rate were much higher for African Americans than same-sex couples, you wouldn't (Page 81) expect to want to move the boundaries of marriage to exclude African Americans? A. I usually don't deal in such extensive hypotheticals. I -- I -- I -- as stated earlier, I -- I don't wish to move the boundaries. Q. Okay. So regardless of what the comparative data ultimately might show; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered on several occasions. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. Some future study? I -- I -- I -- I can't imagine what I would have an opinion after several years of data collection. That -- I don't purport to speak for my future self. Q. Uh-huh. But right now if we had that data, you would not favor altering the -- let me -- let me ask that more completely. Right now if we had data showing comparable or higher divorce rates among African Americans thannsame-sex couples, you would not favor altering marriage to exclude African Americans; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, I don't wish to move the boundaries of marriage but (Page 82) I also don't think about data that doesn't exist. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And -- and, you know, the reason I'm asking these questions is that one of the reasons that you have cited in your report was -- one of the issues you've identified is higher breakup rates for same-sex couples or at least lesbian couples compared to heterosexual couples. I'm trying to understand whether it is your view that having a divorce rate along the lines of what same-sex couples have, or -- or having an elevated divorce rate, in your view, is a reason to exclude a group of people from marriage, and I -- I feel like I don't have an answer to that. A. Right. My citation of those statistics was to document that women's relationships break up at rates exceeding men's relationships, on average. Q. So -- so you were not citing that data as a -- a basis to exclude same-sex couples from marriage; is that right?

A. I was citing it to -- to -- to note that there are distinctions between the two types. Q. Uh-huh. So you -- were you citing it to support the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. (Page 83) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. I was citing it to note that the instability that we -- that I detected in the NFSS study has correspondence in instability in other population-based data sets of gay and lesbian couples both in the United States in Rosenfeld's 2012 ASA paper and in other countries like the Swedish paper. Q. Uh-huh. And is that relevant to -- is that cited to support your opinion regarding keeping marriages limited to heterosexual couples? A. It's cited to note that instability seems to be a concern in same-sex unions. Q. So then going back to -- to my question, if comparable instability were documented among, say, African-American couples, would you favor excluding that group from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I believe I answered that three times already. BY MS. COOPER: Q. You've answered it in very different ways and I feel like I don't have a -- a consistent answer. Sometimes you have said you don't favor altering the limits of marriage and sometimes you've said, I might depending (Page 84) on what the population-based data would ultimately show, and I don't know which it is? A. No. What I'm saying is I don't favor altering the boundaries around marriage. What I might think years and years from now after longitudinal population-based data has come out, I don't purport to know. Q. Uh-huh. So then it -- it -- it -- you're not ruling out that you might favor excluding African Americans from marriage if the data showed that their divorce rates were comparable to the lesbian divorce rates that you have documented? A. I don't purport to speak for myself in the future. Q. Can you speak for yourself right now? If we had that data now that African-American divorce rates were comparable to or worse than lesbian divorce rates, would you, sitting here today in 2013, favor excluding African Americans from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation, asked and answered. It's getting argumentative at this point. THE WITNESS: I don't wish to move the boundaries around marriage and I noted that several times already. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So that -- that's a no. I got it. (Page 85) MS. HEYSE: Objection. That mischaracterizes his testimony. BY MS. COOPER: Q. That's not a no? 'Cause correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Regnerus. MS. HEYSE: Counsel, let's move along. MS. STANYAR: He's got to answer the question. There's a question posed. He's got to answer the question. Is that a no? THE WITNESS: I -MS. HEYSE: Can we have the question -- would you like the question repeated? THE WITNESS: It doesn't need to be repeated. MS. COOPER: Can you read it back, Court Reporter?

THE WITNESS: I don't wish to adjust the boundaries of marriage. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So just to make sure I understand, does that mean, then, you would not, under those circumstances, favor excluding African Americans from marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I would not favor excluding African Americans from marriage.(Page 86) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Quick question about marriage at -- at young ages. I know that you've written papers advocating for people to consider early marriage. What ages did you mean by that? Do you advocate people consider getting married at -- at early 20s or 18? I just want to know what you had in mind. A. Right. I never pegged an -- an age to that just because -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- I don't purport to tell people at what age they ought to get married. I think I did say pretty clearly that I was not a fan of teenage marriage. Q. Uh-huh. A. But that I thought that this was a reasonable thing to consider in your early to mid 20s. Q. Okay. Thank you. You made a reference in your reportto nonmonogamy among gay men. In -- in one of your papers, I -- I think you wrote -- and tell me if I'm -- I'll show it to you if we need to, but it -- it -it said gay men's relationships are less likely to be sexually monogamous when compared to lesbian or heterosexual relationships, but this is believed to be due not to sexual orientation but stable gender differences in relationship preferences and sex drive. (Page 87) Is that -- would you agree with that? MS. HEYSE: Counsel, are you reading from something? MS. COOPER: I -- I -- I am, but rather than -- I'm happy to show a document if -- if he would like, or if you would like, but I just want to know if he agrees with the proposition that gay men's relationships are less likely to be sexually monogamous when compared with lesbian or heterosexual relationships, but this is believed to be due not to sexual orientation but stable gender differences in relationship preferences and sex drive. Do you agree with that? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So men, gay or heterosexual, are more likely than women to be nonmonogamous and have greater sex drive; is that -- that correct? A. That is my assertion. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. I'm wondering, do you happen to know, among heterosexual married couples, what the you know, is there disparities between men and women in rates of infidelity? A. Those are closing but there still is a gender gap so far as I'm aware. (Page 88) Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Do you happen to know what -- if there -- I don't know, if there's any sort of data that you look to for that that you can give -A. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which now tracks people I think through age 32, in Wave IV noted that women in opposite-sex relationships were more likely to suspect that their partner has had another sexual partner than men in opposite-sex relations, and those men are more likely to admit having had another partner than the women. Q. Uh-huh. A. The rates, I would have to -- it's -- it's in that Bowling Green State University study I cited in the report, and I've looked in -- into it in my own use of the Add Health data. Q. Uh-huh, okay. And just curious. Are there other -- besides gender, are there other demographic

criteria that correlate with higher or lower rates of nonmonogamy? A. Yes. Q. What are they? A. Previous partners; the number of previous partners is a pretty good predictor of that. Q. Uh-huh. A. There are some demographic factors that distinguish (Page 89) partners. Age, obviously, you have a longer period of risks, you know, so to speak, but primarily it's a -- a previous number of unions you've had. Q. Are there any disparities based on race? A. I'm not sure in the Add Health data set there are. I cannot recall if the Bowling Green Study noted it. I know in my study of adolescent -- I'm sorry, young-adult sexual behavior, African-American men were slightly more likely to have had more partners than white men. That was the -- that was the primary demographic predictor. Q. Okay. Switching gears from monogamy or nonmonogamy, do you agree that adoption is generally a good thing for children who can't be raised by their biological parents? A. I think adoption is widely understood to be a concession but a -- generally speaking, a positive response to a need. Q. Uh-huh. And do you have any concerns about children who can't be raised by their biological parents who are adopted getting adopted by lesbian and gay couples? A. I haven't really looked into that specifically, nor have I really thought much about it. Q. Okay. So as -- sitting here now, you don't have an (Page 90) opinion about that? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I just haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Do you oppose adoption by lesbian and gay couples? A. I have not formulated an opinion on the subject. Q. Okay. Now, in situations like the -- the couple at issue in this case, if you -- you know, a child who can't be raised by his biological parents and gets adopted into a family headed by a same-sex couple, in - in your opinion, is it better for the child to be adopted by just one of the two adults or both? MS. HEYSE: Objection. I don't know thatDr. Regnerus is qualified to make that determination. THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- I don't have an opinion on -- on that. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. And then, similarly, if you have a -- a child who's conceived via assisted reproductive technology into a lesbian-couple family, is it better or worse for the child to be adopted by the nonbiological parent and have a legal parent-child relationship with both parents? A. I have not formed an opinion about that. In general, (Page 91) I think anything that encourages kinship is -- is a good thing. Q. I -- I -- I'm sorry. I -- I didn't quite hear you. Can you say that again? A. Things that encourage kinship, you know, children being in their biological mother's and father's household is a good thing. I recognize it is not always possible. Q. Uh-huh. Right, well -- and -- and I'm talking about a situation where the -- the family that the child is in is not a two-biological-parent family. It's a biological parent and -- and the partner who together brought the child into the family. In those circumstances, do you think it's better for the child to have a legal rela -- parent/child relationship with both the adults or just the biological parent?

A. I -- I don't know. Q. Okay. Can you -- or you don't think there are any harms to children of not having a legal parent-child relationship to one of the parent figures in the family in those circumstances? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It's outside the scope of Dr. Regnerus' report. THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- I don't know. (Page 92) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. If it's -- it's not an area that you studied; is that right? A. Adoption, you know, I -- I cited in the -- the study as being about diminished kinship, but in the NFSS, I didn't take a close interest in whether the child was related to both of their adopted parents legally or not. Q. So if you've got -- so I just want to make sure I understand. If -- if -- if you're -- you've got a heterosexual couple conceived by donor sperm, say, do you think it's beneficial to the child to have a legal parent-child relationship with both of the parent figures in that family? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, I haven't formed an opinion about that. I just know that states should have interest in encouraging kinship between parents and children. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Right. But in -- in those families that already exist, heterosexual-parent families that used donor sperm, within those families, like -- you don't have an opinion about whether it would be beneficial to the child to have a legal relationship with the (Page 93) male-parent figure in that family? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Outside my scope of purview. I have not formed an opinion. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion about whether single people should be allowed to adopt? A. Again, I -- I -- I don't fashion opinions, generally speaking, about who ought to be the adopt adopting and who shouldn't be adopting. I -- I'm more into documenting the social scientific outcomes of different kinds of family structures and household experiences. Q. So you -- you don't have an opinion about whether single people should be allowed to adopt? A. I've not fashioned one. Q. And -- and I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "not fashioned one." Is that different than not having one? A. I don't think about it. Q. Okay. So you don't have an opinion about it now? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered on many occasions. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. (Page 94) A. I don't have an opinion about it. Q. Okay. Q. Did you give a presentation at Cedarville College on navigating the mar -- the mating market? A. I did. Q. Okay. Sorry I don't have a transcript of that but I just want to ask you if you agree with with something that I thought I heard from the recording. If it -- if it's wrong, you tell me that I heard it wrong. Do you agree that -- well, actually, let me read you in context. Again, tell me if I'm getting any of this wrong or if you don't remember. "What Christians ought to do" -MS. HEYSE: Objection. MS. COOPER: -- "and what they have done best historically" --

MS. HEYSE: Leslie, what are you reading from? MS. COOPER: I'm read -- I'm -- I'm reading from my notes from a recording. I don't have a transcript so if -- if Dr. Regnerus tells me I'm getting that wrong and reading it incorrectly, he can tell me. (Page 95) MS. HEYSE: Sure. I'm going to object to reading a -- a -- that into the transcript, but go -- go ahead. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Giving you a little bit of extra material just to contextualize to help you remember the the passages of the speech: "What Christians ought to do, then, is what they have done best historically; be the church, love one another, declare transcendence, mature as a person, hold out hope for a world desperate for love, practice self-sacrifice, grow in sanctity, marry or not, stay married bearing witness to the fidelity of Christ for his church, make new people or care for those that have been neglected. Everyone is called to motherhood or fatherhood in some fashion or form, physically and/or spiritually. It's part of the very meaning of our body." So -- done -- done reading, again, what I wrote down from what I heard. Is that consistent with your view? A. I stated it. Q. Yeah, okay. And -- and so every -- a specific question about it. When you say, "Everyone is called (Page 96) to motherhood or fatherhood in some fashion or form," does that, in your view, include gay people in same-sex relationships? A. What it means is that everybody is called to look out for young people and to either be married or to be role models to the young people around them. It doesn't -- it doesn't have any particular meaning about who ought to be in legal relationships with others or with children. Q. I see. So motherhood and fatherhood could mean being sort of a support or role model? A. Like a teacher. Teachers are mothers or fathers to their students. Q. Okay. Now, going back to your NFSS study, make sure I understand this correctly. You didn't evaluate a set of individuals who were born or adopted into same-sex-parent families, right? A. Born or adopted into same-sex families. I believe they could have been. We didn't document exactly who was adopted and who wasn't. Well, we actual -- I I take that back. We did, but I couldn't tell you whether they were adopted into a same-sex-couple household -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- as far as I can tell, or if they were born by ART. (Page 97) We know who they were with at various ages but not necessarily all the details about how they came to be. Q. Gotcha. We know that a -- a majority came to be as a result of a prior heterosexual union, right? More than half? A. That is correct. Q. Yeah. And when the individuals in the NFSS were born, is it true that assisted reproductive technology births among same-sex couples was much less common than today? MS. HEYSE: Objection, vague. That's a a large group there with a -- a -- a big differential. THE WITNESS: I suspect ART was less common then than it is today. How less common it was among same-sex couples is an empirical question that I don't think we know the answer to. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. And you have acknowledged, right, that -- that-- that outcomes for children in planned, samesex parent families are likely different than the outcomes of children who are a product of previous heterosexual unions; is that right? A. I believe I said in the NFSS that they are likely different. I don't know that we can document that. Q. Okay. And by planned, same-sex-parent families, do (Page 98) you mean those who create a family together either through assisted reproduction or adoption; is that right? A. I think I meant assisted reproduction but I don't know that I was specific about it, but probably a -- a

sort of propulsive adoption of a couple from a -- a child that's young would be considered planned as well. Q. Uh-huh. So -- so is it -- is -- are you able to draw conclusions from your study about outcomes for children in planned lesbian-couple families? A. No. I would say that would be speculative. Q. Now, I know that in -- in your study you say that you can't ascertain the cause of the suboptimal outcome in the lesbian mother and gay father group; is that right? A. I said something like that, yup. Q. Yeah. Okay. But it -- you've recognized, right, that a -- a likely suspect is the household stability in the lesbian mother and gay father group? A. I stated that -Q. Is that right? A. -- yes. Q. Sorry? A. Yes, I stated that. Q. Yeah. Okay. And is it right that poorer child (Page 99) outcomes are associated with divorce and family disruption? A. I believe I stated that. Q. Yeah. I -- I'm wondering if -- I don't know if it's possible for -- well, actually, let me ask -- ask a different question. Have -- have you ever, using your NFSS data, controlled for divorce and family transitions to determine if the disparities that exist between the lesbian mother, gay father group, and the intact biological family group remained once that is controlled for? A. I don't know that it's possible to always know when household transitions were divorces, but we can see in the calendars who comes -- you know, that they lived with parents, same-sex-partner, or parents, opposite-sex partner or spouse, stepparent, et cetera, and they would note how long in years that they were in this relationship and then whether, you know, at age 13 they stopped indicating that their stepfather, or mother's partner, lived with them. We would count that as a transition -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- but in terms of regression results, I have not. I indicated in the follow-up in the November issue of (Page 100) Social Science Research that given how profound the instability was, that I presumed that it would you know, that the results would be different if you had controlled for such profound instability. Now, I said there I wondered whether that was the intelligent thing to do given that instability was so common among them. Q. Okay. A. I also said that -- yeah. I'll leave it at that. Q. Okay. Have you reviewed Michael Rosenfeld's expert report submitted in this case? A. Yes. Q. And did you see his discussion of his analysis of the NFSS data where he controlled for family transition? A. I did. Q. Yeah. Did you agree with his analysis? A. I suspect he's accurate in saying that controlling for instability makes a big difference. Q. Uh-huh. And he found, right, that controlling for family transition removed the disparities between the gay mother -- I'm sorry -- gay mother and lesbian mother groups on the one hand and the intact biological families on the other? A. I don't know that it removes the disparities but it explains the disparities. (Page 101)

Q. But would another way to say that actually be that he accounts for the disparities? A. When you control for the profound relationship instability we saw, that the differences would not be nearly so significant. Q. Uh-huh. A. And I said in my study, both in the July issue and the follow-up in November, that my goal was to describe the differences that we saw in people in different household experiences and family relationship structures rather than attempt to explain and account for all those things. I'll leave it at that. Q. Okay. Now, I understand that you had some consultants that worked with you in -- in designing the NFSS; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And I -- I'm wondering, who was it who proposed doing the sample by asking, Has your parent had a same-sex relationship during the course of your childhood? Was that your idea? A. That was in the room in January of 2011 when I had all the key consultants talking amongst ourselves in a group about how best to capture the panoply of respondents who had a same-sex parent, both those who were born to one, those who were, you know, later (Page 102) adopted, those who -- who -- whose mother entered one after a failed heterosexual union in -- in a screener questionnaire. How do we best capture all of them with a mind that we would also capture household calendar -- household-structure calendar data later that would help clarify who was in the household and when, so that was a decision that I believe was made in -- among the group of consultants. Q. And do you recall whose idea it was initially? A. I do not. Q. Uh-huh. So you don't know if it was yours or somebody else suggested it? A. I don't. MS. COOPER: All right. I'd like to -- Carole, can you take out Exhibit 23 -- not Exhibit 23, but document 23 that we will mark as Exhibit 3, I believe. MS. STANYAR: Yes. Starts with "Re: Coding" at the top? MS. COOPER: That's right. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 11:18 a.m MS. HEYSE: We're all set here. (Page 103) MS. COOPER: Oh, okay. Great. So that's --that's Number -- Exhibit 3. Court reporter, did I get that right? COURT REPORTER: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So these are two e-mails. Do you recognize these e-mails? A. Yes. Q. And are they between you and -- and Brad Wilcox? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I -- I'd like to call your attention to the one at the top of the page. A. Uh-huh. Q. Where -- this is from you to Wilcox saying: "Right; I'm just saying I won't have a clear sense of the role of divorce in the same-sex thing until later (and frankly, most of them will be children of divorce). But I will have simple regs here in a few days, I think. Where are you - Madrid?" Okay. The last part is less relevant. So, first of all, what did you mean by "simple regs"? A. Regression models that I ran early in the -- from the date, it looks like I had just gotten the first batch (Page 104) of data. It came in in batches.

Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And did you ever get a clear sense of the role of divorce in the outcomes of the -- the gay father and lesbian mother group? A. I think the context of this e-mail is reflected in the November follow-up where I distinguished, in using the calendar, data of who was in the household and when, and whether -- and how many of the cases of children who said their parent had a same-sex relationship had been in failed heterosexual unions at birth. I think that's what I mean by divorce. I use divorce as sort of a -- just a union dissolution term because at that time I did not know or had not -- I had not investigated thoroughly the marital status of the parents. Q. Okay. A. In parentheses I say "most of them will be children of divorce" by which I'm referring most of them will be the product of a failed heterosexual union. I'm not necessarily speaking of legal divorce at that time. Q. Understood. Thank you for clarifying. Can -- Carole, can you put out document 28 and have that marked as Exhibit 4? MS. STANYAR: To Abbie Goldsberg? MS. COOPER: Huh? (Page 105) MS. STANYAR: Is it to Abbie Goldsberg? MS. COOPER: That's right. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 11:21 a.m. MS. COOPER: You guys have that? MS. HEYSE: Yes, we have it. MS. STANYAR: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Great. Okay. So, Dr. Regnerus, the -- the first page appears to be an e-mail from you to Abbie Goldberg dated November 30 of 2010; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Do you recognize this? MS. STANYAR: We're marking this as 4. Is that what we did? This is 4. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So you recognize this e-mail, Dr. Regnerus? A. Yes. Q. Okay. The bottom appears to be just the beginning of an e-mail from Abbie Goldberg to you that was cut off, but then I have a question. The -- the next page and the following -- the next page begins with the word, "Excellent questions Abbie," and at the end it says "Yours, Mark." Is that an e-mail from you to (Page 106) Abbie Goldberg? A. I would presume so. Q. You -- you recognize this? A. I'm -- I'm -- which page of this are we looking at? Q. If you flip to the second page of the exhibit. A. Where there's a big block of black. Q. There's some black, yeah, that looks like somebody marked out, yeah. A. Yes. That looks like an e-mail from me. Q. Okay. Okay. So just a couple of questions for you about this. Let me just get you to the right passage. Okay. If you turn to the second page that begins on top, "Re: Study on New Family Forms," okay? And if you go to the paragraph that looks -- the one that begins -- it's in the middle of the page about who's

involved so far? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And if you go to what looks like the -- actually, the -- the second sentence -- sentence. But I'll read you the whole par -- the preceding sentence to give the context. "About who's involved so far, I don't consider Paul Amato a conservative scholar, but rather right down the middle. He's well-regarded in family structure studies, including on marriage (Page 107) and divorce. I'm happy he'll be a part of this, because frankly when sampling young adult children of gays and lesbians, it seems that plenty will have experience with a heterosexual divorce in the past (and after that, a 'coming out' as gay or lesbian). The experience of divorce will be a confounding factor in this study, and we need advice about it. Wilcox studies hetero marriage, and is on board for that purpose, since this is a comparative study." I'll just stop there. First of all, did -- did you get advice from Wilcox about the confounding factor of divorce? A. I think the -- the reference to confounding factor of divorce is with respect to Paul Amato who's sort of an expert on divorce. Q. Uh-huh. Did he -- did he give you advice on -- on -- on that confounding factor? A. I don't recall. Probably did. Q. So when the data came in from the NFSS, did you and any of the consultants on the project discuss how much, if at all, divorce or family instability accounted for the disparities between the lesbian mother and gay father group on the one hand and intact biological families? (Page 108) A. You mean as a control variable? Is that what you're saying? Q. Well, did -- did you guys ever have discussions about how much that family transitions accounted for the disparity? A. I don't recall. Q. Okay. A. I didn't -- I didn't consult with -Q. Did -MS. STANYAR: Wait, wait. He's done answering -- he's not done yet. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. I didn't go back and consult with the entire group that had met in January. That was sort of a -- they consulted me on sampling methodology and survey questions. Q. I see. So once the data came in, they were less involved in the process? A. Correct. Q. Okay. I'm just -- just so that I -- I know who they are, who were the consultants who -- who helped with the design? A. In January? I think -- and I might miss one. I think Paul Amato was there; Jason Carroll was there; Cynthia (Page 109) Osborne; Ellie Railey; Shannon Cavanaugh; Joseph Sabia; Brad Wilcox; and at that point I had a representative from Knowledge Networks, the data collection firm, to answer questions so far as he could give them about what he thought the knowledge panel could do. Q. Uh-huh. A. Those were the key consultants. Q. And I understand there were some people you asked who -- who turned you down. Can you tell me who those people were? A. I probably won't remember them all. Q. And let me ask you more clear. There were some people you asked to -- to join as consultants who -who turned you down. Can you say who they were?

A. I -- I may not remember them all, but Michael Rosenfeld, Brian Powell, I believe I asked Susan Brown at Bowling Green, Tim Biblarz, Gary Gates and Abbie Goldberg. There -- there may have been one more. I -- I don't recall. Q. Okay. Why did you ask Michael Rosenfeld to be a consultant? A. Because at that time I believe the demography article was just coming out and we were dealing with population-based studies, and if I recall, I I (Page 110) 1 think -- I knew he was working on Knowledge Networks data as well. Q. Is he someone you consider to have a strong reputation in the field? A. He's well-regarded. Q. What about Gary Gates, is he well-regarded in the field? A. In terms of gay and lesbian demography, I believe so. Q. Did Rosenfeld tell you why he declined your invitation to be a consultant? A. He may have. I don't recall it. MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. Go ahead. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. He may have. I don't recall. Q. Uh-huh. Do you recall why any of the others turned you down? A. Some were too busy, some liked the idea of it, I think some were nervous about the funding agencies, and I thought I had a few of them on board and then in one day they -- two or three of them had declined, so at the end I had none of the list -- the last list that I described to you. Q. Okay. And besides the folks who came to the -- I think you said the January meeting; is that right? (Page 111) A. Uh-huh. Q. January of 2011? A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. Uh-huh. Besides those folks who you discussed the design with, did you get input on design study from people outside of those consultants? A. Yes, mostly on question wording, and I'd have to go back to the -- the financial files of who we paid as consultants, but we have Walter Schumm. I asked him for his opinion on the survey. I might have asked Joe Price. I don't recall for sure. I did pay him later to recreate my study conclusions from -- given the raw data as a check on what I had written. There may have been one or two others who had looked at the -- the survey. Q. Uh-huh. Did you discuss design with anyone at the Witherspoon Institute? A. No. Q. Did anyone on your consulting team that you met with, whether before the data came in or after, raise concerns about the fact that your gay father and lesbian mother groups were mostly children of failed heterosexual unions and that that would prevent conclusions to be drawn from the impact of same-sexparent households? (Page 112) A. That's a long question. Could you repeat that? Q. Sure. Well, let me -- let me break it down. Fair enough. Did anyone on your consulting team raise concerns about the fact that your gay father, lesbian mother groups were mostly children of failed heterosexual unions and how that would affect your conclusions you could draw? A. You're talking about the Jan -- January 2011 group that -- that was at the beginning of the study figuring out how we would ask questions -Q. Uh-huh.

A. -- and screen for people, and then -- and you're asking me, I believe, about whether I went back to them later and -- you know, a year later or something? Q. Uh-huh. A. Let's see. I circulated -Q. Did you talk to any of those folks after the data came in? A. I circulated my draft paper at some point but not to everybody, I suspect. I think I might have said who wants a copy. I don't recall who actually got that. Q. And those you sent it to, did any of them raise concerns about the ability to draw conclusions about same-sex-parent families, given the significant number (Page 113) of children who had a failed -- a previous failed heterosexual-parent family? A. Given my wording about causation in the article itself, I think people thought that was an adequate sort of qualification that I wasn't making claims about sexual orientation here because we didn't measure sexual orientation. Q. Okay. I'd like to now mark as Exhibit 5, right, yeah, what happens to be document 5, Carole, in your documents. It's -- it's your initial report or your -- your report on the NFSS, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structure Study." MS. HEYSE: And just a moment. MS. COOPER: Sure. MS. HEYSE: Did we say 5? COURT REPORTER: Five. MS. HEYSE: Thank you. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 5 11:32 a.m. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And, actually, to save some time, let's also mark document number 6 as Exhibit 6, and that document is (Page 114) Mark Regnerus "Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses." MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 6 11:32 a.m. MS. COOPER: Okay. And let's do one more as number 7, Carole. It happens to be document 7, Mark Regnerus, "Response to Paul Amato, David Eggebeen" -- that's E-G-G-E-B-E-E-N -- "and Cynthia Osborne," Osborne with an E. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 7 11:33 a.m. MS. STANYAR: You have all three exhibits? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. STANYAR: Okay. MS. COOPER: Okay. You got it? MS. STANYAR: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So let's turn first to the NFSS study, Exhibit 5, and if you could turn with me to page 766, under the section "Conclusion" -MS. HEYSE: Hold on. Just a second. We're (Page 115) not quite there. MS. COOPER: Sure. MS. HEYSE: All set? Okay.

BY MS. COOPER: Q. Just one second. The second sentence of the conclusion, it says -- well, actually, I'll just read from the first to make it give context. "As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are national arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive."2 Citation to Rosenfeld, 2007. "This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such." You wrote that, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So if we flip now to the Exhibit 6, your answering critics article? A. Uh-huh. Q. Page 1, the opening paragraph, an introduction -- well, I'll -- I'll read the intro language so that the context is clear. "The July 2012 publication in this journal of my study on the young adult children of parents who have had a same-sex relationship created more (Page 116) criticism and scrutiny than have most sociological studies. The intensity of the response can be attributed largely to the fact that the results of this study - based on a large population-based sample - differed markedly from earlier research based largely on small, nonrandom samples of same-sex families. Others would no doubt disagree. Apart from criticisms about measurement or sampling issues, concern has been expressed about all manner of minutiae, as well as details about the publication process, the funding agencies, and even the data collection firm. Some perceive it as a tool for this or that political project, a role it was never designed to fill. It cannot answer political or legal questions, and is by definition a retrospective look at household composition and dynamics." Okay. You wrote that? A. Yes. Q. Right? And then I want to actually -- let's look at the next exhibit, Exhibit 7. Page 786, the first page, opening paragraph, this is your response to Paul Amato, David Eggebeen and Cynthia Osborne. Again, I'll read -- I'll read the whole paragraph for (Page 117) clarity. "I had hoped that my words in response to those of Paul Amato, David Eggebeen, and Cynthia Osborne could be few, and after digesting their comments, I am content to be brief. Each voices confidence in what" -- we -- sorry -- "what the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is and can do, and expresses appropriate concern that readers remain aware of what it cannot do. I conveyed similar sentiment in the manuscript itself, and need only echo theirs here. I recognize, with Paul and Cynthia, that organizations may utilize these findings to press a political program. And I concur with them that that is not what data come prepared to do. Paul offers wise words of caution against it, as did I in the body of the text. Implying causation here - to parental sexual orientation or anything else, for that matter - is a bridge too far." You wrote that, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then I want to mark one additional exhibit before I ask a couple questions. Let me just find it. It's, Carole, number 16 in the documents. It's called "Q & A with Mark Regnerus about the (Page 118) background of his new study." MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 8 11:38 a.m. BY MS. COOPER: Q. You guys have that marked? A. Yes. Q. Okay. This is -- well, this document is an -- an interview you did; is that right? A. Questions I answered. Q. Uh-huh. And who -- who wrote the questions or who -A. I did. Q. -- whose questions were they?

A. I did. Q. So you did the questions and answered to provide information about your study -A. Correct. Q. -- is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it says here that it's published on patheos, P-A-T-H-E-O-S, dot com. What is patheos.com? A. It seems to be a collection of blogs mostly having to do with the broader orbit of religion or irreligion. I blogged off and on for two years roughly once a week with several other sociologists. (Page 119) Q. Okay. Just one second. Okay. If you turn to the second page of this interview or Q and A, let's call it. A. Yup. Q. Midway down there's a question, if you'll read along with me. "Q Is there a political take-home message in the 8 study? "A No. As I stated in the article, 'this study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships . . .'. "Q Come on. You can't surmise what people will make of this study politically? "A You know, I don't think it easily lends itself to one particular answer to any of the politicized questions that are circulating about gay marriage, or parental rights, etc." What it comprise -"What it comprises is significant, new, high-quality information on the long reach of household structure in the lives of American young people. And more information is always a plus, I would think." You -you wrote that? A. I did. Q. Okay. And do you still hold that view? (Page 120) A. The study is one of child outcomes of people who -- who come from different kind of household experiences and structures. It doesn't advise directly on any particular legal case or political case. People can read it and draw their own conclusions, and people have read it and drawn radically different conclusion about it. I've not attempted to police those. There is a leap, obviously, from social science data of any sort to political or legal questions which studies typically are not designed to answer. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So -- so it's -- it's not your view that the NFSS study is a -- supports a position in the debate over marriage for same-sex couples; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: It's targeted at assessing the comparative relationships of people who've been in samesex relation -- people who've parents have been in sex -- same-sex relationships. It is information, as I said it would be -- you know, interesting information for people in fashioning their assessments of such - the legal merits of such relationships, but insofar as we're typically talking about sexual orientation with respect to same-sex marriage, I did (Page 121) not measure same-sex -- I'm sorry -- I did not measure sexual orientation. BY MS. COOPER: Q. But you believe that it's inappropriate, if I understand some of these documents correctly, to use the findings from the NFSS to press a political goal on the marriage issue; is that right? A. I didn't -- could you restate that? Q. Is it your view that it is inappropriate to use your findings from the NFSS to press the political goal of, you know -A. I didn't say it was inappropriate. I -- I said it did not come designed to do so. Q. Okay. Now, you have joined an Amicus brief against marriage for same-sex couples filed with the US Supreme Court; is that right? A. I did.

Q. Yeah. And -- and in that Amicus brief you cited your study, among other things, as -- as -- as part of the analysis; is that right? A. I did. Q. And you testified against marriage for same-sex couples in the Hawaiian legislature; is that right? A. I testified about what was known from social science data sets. I don't recall exactly if I had (Page 122) made remarks around same-sex marriage there or not. I -- I may have. Q. Okay. MS. HEYSE: Leslie -- Leslie, this is Kristin. We have five minutes, just so you know, on the tape. MS. COOPER: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'll finish this line of questions. That will be a good breaking point. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And in that testimony in the Hawaiian legislature, you cited your study for your discussion? A. Yes. Q. The NFSS study, just to be clear. A. Yes, one among several. Q. Uh-huh. And now you're offering expert opinion against marriage for same-sex couples in this case and have cited your study in your expert report; is that right? A. Among other things that I cite, I -- yes, that's what I'm doing. Q. Uh-huh. So -- is it your view now that you think your study does support the exclusion of same-sex couples for marriage? A. The study suggests that, at present, among (Page 123) population-based data sets, we see no comparably good replacement for these stable marriage between a man and a woman. Q. Uh-huh. So then does your -- your study -- you think the findings from your study do support limiting marriage to heterosexual couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I think the study suggests that stable marriage among men and women with children is the best optimal -- best environment for -- on average, for long-term child development. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And then because of that, you think your study, then, supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I -- I think it suggests that the boundaries of marriage should be messed with only with -- should not be moved, basically. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'm sorry. Should not be -- I didn't hear you. A. Should not be moved. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. But -- but it's your view that if the data shows that the outcomes for kids of samesex couples were equivalent to kids of married heterosexual couples, would that change your opinion (Page 124) on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I believe we've covered this before. I haven't thought about the future data, but at present I don't see a reason to alter the boundaries of marriage. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And -- and -- and at present, even if we had current data saying that the outcomes were equivalent, you would still favor keeping the marriage limited to heterosexual couples; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Again, calls for speculation, object.

THE WITNESS: As I said earlier, I don't -- I don't think the boundaries of marriage ought to be moved. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Can you repeat that? A. What future data might -Q. I didn't hear you. A. I don't think the boundaries of marriage should be moved. What future data might say and what my future self might think of it is utterly (Page 125) Q. Uh-huh. But -A. -- speculative. Q. Sorry. But your current self, even if we had data establishing equivalent outcomes, you would still favor limiting marriage to heterosexual couples; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection. Again, it calls for speculation. We don't have the data here today. That's what he's repeatedly told you. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. Some people think it is equivalent in terms of the findings, as Rosenfeld was disputed in his report. I think based on the population-based studies that I am aware of, I see no reason to move the boundaries around marriage. Q. That -- that's -- I have a different question though. That was not my question. My question -- and I'm -- I'm entitled to ask a hypothetical. If, today, we had data -- population data showing equivalent outcomes for children of same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, would you still favor limiting marriage to heterosexual couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, vague. There are a lot of "what ifs" with regard to that -- what the data (Page 126) is. THE WITNESS: Yeah. That would -- that would -BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. -- hinge, in part, on -- it would be speculative for me to think what I might think if we had data that was different. I usually only operate with the data realities that exist. The data realities that exist suggest that marriage boundaries ought not to be shifted. Q. So then is it fare to say you -- you don't know what your view would be about allowing same-sex couples to marry if the data shows equivalent outcomes for children of same-sex and different same-sex couples? A. I haven't thought about it too much because that data does not exist. Q. So -- so you don't know? A. I don't know my opinion about something that doesn't exist. Q. Okay. So is it then -- well, are we -- we're probably running out of time. Let's take the break and -and I'll -- I'll finish up when we come back. MS. HEYSE: We have two minutes, Leslie, unless you want to stop. (Page 127) MS. COOPER: Oh, okay. I'll try. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So I understood that a reason you were giving for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is that evidence suggests there may be poorer outcomes in same-sex parent families, so I'm asking, is that the -the basis of your view exclu -- your opinion to limit marriage to heterosexuals or if that data existed showing equivalent outcomes, would you change your view? A. Again, I have not thought much about data that doesn't exist. I'm not sure.

Q. Does that -- that mean that it's -- that the -- whatever the data shows on comparative outcomes for children of same-sex couples and children of married heterosexual couples, that is not what will dictate your view about whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples? A. It may be interesting information. I don't know that it would be the sole dictator of my position. Q. Okay. So -- so asking, your position of favoring limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is not based solely on outcome -- child outcome data? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Let's -- well, actually, one last -- and what (Page 128) are the other things it's based on besides child outcome data? A. I mentioned earlier that -- about the historic expectations about marital permanence, fidelity and the general ex -- expectation of welcoming children. That tends to be part of the definition of marriage that I operate with. That is one piece of it. Q. Okay. So -- so you would favor limiting marriage to heterosexual couples -MS. HEYSE: Leslie -BY MS. COOPER: Q. -- for that reason regardless of what the child outcome data shows? MS. HEYSE: Leslie, it's -- we have to stop. The tape's out so -MS. COOPER: Okay. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: And I don't want to cut off his answer. MS. HEYSE: Okay. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We're going off the record at 11:50 p.m. for a media change. (Off the record at 11:50 a.m.) (Back on the record at 12:26 p.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 12:26 p.m. We are back on the record. Please continue. (Page 129) MS. COOPER: Thank you. Court Reporter, it would be great if you could read back the last two questions before the break. COURT REPORTER: Okay. MS. COOPER: If there were any. COURT REPORTER: Actually, you started asking a question and then got interrupted because of the tape. MS. COOPER: Okay. COURT REPORTER: This is what -MS. COOPER: So then -- you know what then? I'll -- I'll just -- I'll ask it again. COURT REPORTER: I will -- "So you would favor limiting marriage to heterosexual" -- and then you got interrupted. MS. COOPER: Thank You. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Dr. Regnerus, we were talking before the break about the fact that you have a -- a view that marriage is about permanence, fidelity and -- and often the anticipation of children. I'm sorry. Did someone -MS. HEYSE: I apologize. I had to cough. (Page 130) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Oh, sorry. I'll start over. Before the break we were talking about your views of marriage as something that relates to permanence, fidelity and often the anticipation of children, and that that's your view regardless of what the child outcome data shows; is that right? A. I -- I think that is a component to my opinion. You asked for components. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So -- thank you. So then my next question is, then, would you favor excluding same-

sex couples from marriage regardless of what the child outcome data shows? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It's outside the scope of his report. THE WITNESS: You mean, the conclusion of my report was about counseling the State of Michigan on its existing law of maintaining the traditional boundaries of marriage, and -BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. A. -- I affirm those traditional boundaries. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and would you affirm those traditional boundaries regardless of what the child outcome data in same-sex-parent families showed? (Page 131) A. It is -- it is a component of how I think about it, but it's one component and the data enlighten those other components, too, about fidelity, stability and you know, obviously having children, so data is a component of how I think about this. Q. So -- so do I understand correctly that it's possible that if the data shows equivalent outcomes of children from same-sex and different-sex parents, that might change your view and -- and lead you to support marriage for same-sex couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: As I've said earlier, I don't operate in the world of data that we don't have. Data is part of the -- how I come to think about these questions, but it is one component of them. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I see. So data's part of your -- how you come to think about the question of whether or not marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples, but it's not the only component; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I think I said that earlier, yes. (Page 132) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Switching gears, so I understand that, you know, the journal that -- that published your NFSS study subsequently conducted a review in which an auditor concluded that the study should not have been published. You're aware of that; is that right? A. I'm aware that they conducted an audit. It was not really an independent audit, in my opinion, and the person who wrote the -- conducted and wrote the audit evaluated the review process, which was his task so far as I could tell, and then after that he expanded upon his opinions about this article and whether it should have been published. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Have you heard anything further about any plans by the journal to further comment on your study or rescind it, anything like that? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I have heard nothing. MS. COOPER: Carole, if you could take out -- actually, take that back. THE WITNESS: Can I -- can I qualify that response? BY MS. COOPER: Q. This is -- pardon? A. I have heard nothing present. I mean, I've heard (Page 133) there were rumors in the past and there were efforts to retract it. I'm unaware of any current efforts. Q. Gotcha. So Paul Amato was one of the consultants on your study; is that right? A. Yes. Q. You -- you asked him to be a consultant? A. I did. Q. Uh-huh. He's a sociologist; is that right?

A. Yes. Q. He's at Penn State? A. Correct. Q. You consider him a scholar who is well-regarded in family-structure studies? A. Especially with respect to divorce, yes. Q. Uh-huh. And do you consider him a scholar who's right down the middle politically, neither liberal nor conservative? A. Insofar as I understood him, yes, that's what I perceived. Q. Is that -- is that still your perception? A. That is. Q. Uh-huh. And you consider him to be a fare and level-headed scholar in this area? A. I generally do. Q. Uh-huh. Are you aware of the statement that (Page 134) Paul Amato made regarding your study that was posted in July of this past year on a blog? A. I might be. I'm not sure what's -- you're referencing. Q. Okay. Yeah. Let's take a look. Carole, document number 15. This document is called "Paul Amato on Reviewing Regnerus." And am I right, we're marking this as Exhibit 9? COURT REPORTER: Yes. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 9 12:35 a.m. MS. COOPER: You all have this? MS. HEYSE: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. All right. So this is a -- just for the record, a document that -- on the -- the header is -- put out by I believe a blog called "Family In Equality" titled "Paul Amato on Reviewing Regnerus," dated July 20, 2013. Have you ever seen this before? A. Back close to the time it came out, I briefly skimmed it, but I would have to refamiliarize myself with it -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- if you want me to answer questions about it. (Page 135) Q. Okay. Now, when -- when you saw this, did you have any discussion with Paul Amato about it? A. You mean did I correspond with Paul on or around July 20th? Q. Well, let me ask it differently. I -- I'll break it down. Thank you. Before he put out this statement, did he talk to you about it at all, that he was going to do that? A. No. Q. So after you read this, did you speak with him about this statement that he put out? A. No. Q. Okay. So you talked to him during that time period around July 20, 2013 about other things; is that right? A. No, I don't think I've -- I'm not sure but I don't think I've talked to Paul in quite a while. I mean -Q. Okay. A. -- it may be over a year. Q. Gotcha. I'd like to call your attention to a passage on -- let me find it for you -- on the third page, and it is the first full paragraph on the page beginning with the word "rather." A. Yes. (Page 136) Q. Okay. And if we need to read more of it to give you context, we can do that, but let's see if this will

do the trick. "Rather than dismiss these nationals as being irrelevant, however, it's useful to dig more deeply into the results. Why did these marriages end in divorce? More importantly, why did gays and lesbians wind up in heterosexual marriages in the first place? The explanation probably would go something like this: Like heterosexuals, many gays and lesbians wish to have families and raise children. But a generation ago, intolerance was the rule and discrimination against gays and lesbians was endemic. For many, forming" -- any -- sorry. "For many, forming heterosexual unions appeared to be the only way to achieve the dream of family and children. But these unions tended to be unstable, with problematic consequences for adults and children. Presumably, as our society becomes more accepting of LGBT families, the unfortunate circumstances of children and parents described in the Regnerus study will become less common. The freedom to marry, in particular, should increase stability in the lives of children with gay and lesbian (Page 137) parents." Do you disagree with anything in this paragraph? A. There's a few things that I would caution. Would you like me to begin with the top of the paragraph? Q. Sure. A. First, I think it's -- it's affirmative to say let's dig into the -- the results. He says, "Why did these marriages end in divorce?" I did say plenty of those unions were not necessarily marriages but they were heterosexual unions but some, of course, were divorces. And then he says, "Why did gays and lesbians," and I had tried to make it clear that I did not know the orientation of people, and I -- so I -- I wouldn't talk about that in excess with respect to gays and lesbians in -- in the way that Paul does. He says, "Like heterosexuals, many gays and lesbians wish to have families and raise children." I mean, that's an empirical question. He's probably right. I do not know -- actually, I take that back. The National Study of Family Growth has data about who wants children more, and I know that in the latest series, I believe it was bisexuals were more likely than gays and lesbians to want to have children. So (Page 138) he's making some leaps, which is not uncommon, I suspect, but -- but he's correct that, you know, a generation ago things were different and the unions, as we can see in NFSS, tended to be unstable and then he says, "Presumably, as our society becomes more accepting . . . unfortunate circumstances will become less common." That's an empirical question I don't believe has been answered yet. And his statement about "The freedom to marry . . . should increase stability," is also, you know, a speculative thing about the future. He may be right. I don't know. Q. Right. Do you agree that marriage promotes family stability in heterosexual couples' families? A. In some ways marriage denotes, you know, a -- a more legally stable union because it provides for -ensures legally, sort of, that things are not as simple to break apart. Q. And -- and I'm sorry. You -- I didn't hear you clearly. If -- if the court reporter could read back that answer to save you the breath. (The requested portion of the record was read by the reporter at 12:42 p.m.: "Answer: In some ways marriage denotes, you know, a -- a more legally stable union (Page 139) because it provides for -- ensures legally, sort of, that things are not as simple to break apart.") BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So if I understand that right, because it's a legal union and harder to break apart, that that could promote stability for heterosexual couples' marriage; is that right? A. It could. We don't have long-term empirical population-based data on it. Q. We -- we -- we don't know if married heterosexual couples -A. Oh, on married heterosexuals, yes. Correct. I'm sorry. MS. STANYAR: Wait, wait, wait. Wait a second. You were talking over his voice. Can you answer -MS. COOPER: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize he was talking. THE WITNESS: Right. BY MS. COOPER:

Q. Go ahead. A. Right. As you were saying that, I was reading Paul's freedom-to-marry statement and responding to it. But, yes, I mean, married heterosexual unions are (Page 140) considered to be more stable than cohabiting unions, that is correct. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. If we go back to Exhibit 1, your report, paragraph 49 -- I'll let you flip to that. MS. HEYSE: I think we're set. MS. STANYAR: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. You say, "In that study," and it looks like you're referring to the Rosenfeld study in the previous paragraph. "In that study, the highest stability rates appear among heterosexual married couples, while notably better stability is located among married gay and lesbian couples than among those in civil unions (as would be expected)." Why would you expect the same-sex couples to have greater stability in marriages than civil unions? A. Because marriage, in some ways, is a reflection of -- it's a self-selective mechanism. If you wish to commit more intensively, on average, people move then towards marriage, so as I mentioned earlier, like marriage is a reflection -- is a -- of enmeshment in a legally more -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- stable arrangem (Page 141) Q. And -- and that you think is true for both heterosexual couples and same-sex couples? A. Well, Rosenfeld's data indicated that he found married gay and lesbian couples more stable, although that was across only two -- three waves of two years, so the stability that we're talking about is -- is very short-term. It is empirically unknown because we don't have longitudinal data past two years, so far as I can tell, of whether that stability remains true over five, ten plus years -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and in the United States, of course -Q. You -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. In the United States, of course, we advented this in Massachusetts, I believe, in 2004, so I don't think we even have the ability to document ten years yet so -Q. But -- but you, yourself, would expect greater stability among married gay and lesbian couples than those in civil unions as you noted in the -- in the report; is that right? A. Correct. Q. All right. Do you think it -- it -- it hurts children in any way if their same-sex parents are unable to be married? MS. HEYSE: Objection, vague. (Page 142) THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. I want to go back to the Paul Amato statement that we were looking at, Exhibit Let me find the right passage. If you go back to that same third page, middle paragraph, the paragraph beginning, "In short," and a few sentences in, you'll see the words, "The lesson from the Regnerus study". A. Yes. Q. He writes: "The lesson from the Regnerus study, however, is that children thrive on family stability, including children with gay and lesbian parents. We know that marriage tends to stabilize relationships, yet same-sex marriage is not allowed in most states. Given that children benefit from the stability provided by marriage, it is unfair and unkind to deny children the right to live with married parents." Let me finish this. "In contrast to the 'no difference' perspective, a 'family stability' perspective implies that we need to change our laws NOW to protect and benefit children." Do you disagree with him on this?

(Page 143) A. Let me take that paragraph from the beginning. "In short, nationals from the Regnerus study can be interpreted as strong evidence in support of same-sex marriage." From the beginning of -- from when this -- the original July 2010 study came out, some people made that conclusion from the data, and I didn't purport to tell people how to interpret the data with respect to this political question knowing that people would see in it different things. He's correct that children thrive on family stability. When he says "including children with gay and lesbian parents," all I can say is in the NFSS -- with respect to the NFSS is that there were very few children who witnessed what we might say is a very long-term relationship with their mother and her partner, and I -- I think I either indicated in the report or in some other document that those handful of kids displayed above av -- you know, or better than -- better developmental outcomes than did kids who exhibited greater instability. One of the things that I also noted, however, is that how rare they were in this generation of adult child. I think I indicated two cases out of 175 respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, two cases endured for 18 years, (Page 144) or at least all 18 years of growing up of that child, so I don't know if that means the future will be different with different laws. I just know that the instability was notable in the data. Q. Do you know whether the instability of the current generation of young children growing up is -- in same-sex-parent families is the same? A. I don't know that. I -- I'm not aware of population-based data collection efforts that are going on. There may well be. I'm unaware of them. Um -- yeah. Q. I mentioned earlier the Amicus brief you joined in the Windsor and Perry cases at the US Supreme Court. That -- that was a -- an Amicus brief submitted on behalf of a number of social scientists; is that right? A. Yes. Q. How did you get to be involved in that? How did that come about? A. I think I was approached by -- or I was -- I was asked to consider it by the Alliance Defending Freedom, and I had no prior experience of doing that but I thought that that would be an avenue of -that I thought was okay to pursue -Q. Uh-huh. (Page 145) A. -- and so I pursued it with those other co-signees. Q. Uh-huh. And the -- I understand the counsel of record in the case is someone named Abram Pafford. Did you ever speak with him? A. Corresponded but did not speak. Q. And -- and by counsel of record, I mean counsel for the Amicus brief that you joined, just to clarify for the record. You corresponded but didn't speak with him; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Who at ABS approached you about this? A. I honestly don't recall the name. Q. And did you draft any portions of the brief? A. Almost all of it. Q. You did? Okay. Did any of the other Amici in the case draft any parts of the brief? A. They offered commentary. I don't recall if -- if they added text or not. Q. Uh-huh. But -- but you did the initial draft of the entire brief? A. There were pieces of text that were floating around that I pulled in together with -- and -- I -- I think they might have come from a previous document. I'm not sure where that was, and I worked on that document and added more to it. (Page 146) Q. What kind of previous document was that that you are referring to?

A. I don't recall, I mean, what previous document. It was -- there was some -- some on differential father-and-mother child outcome things. Q. Uh-huh. A. I had not drafted that piece. Q. Okay. Just to do it again, the section on the differential father-and-mother component of the brief, that -- that was drawn from a -- a prior work by somebody else? A. Well, it was -- it was -- I don't know if it was drawn from a prior work but it -- it was -- I didn't create it. Q. Okay. And you -- have you, in that section of the brief -- and let's actually mark as an exhibit, Carole, document 18, a copy of the Amici Curiae Brief of Social Science Professors in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal. Let's mark that as Exhibit 10. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 10 12:51 p.m. MS. COOPER: While the court reporter is (Page 147) doing that, I will flag for you that there's something funky with the printing of this document that I can't explain. This is how I found this document. It prints funny but, hopefully, it will show enough for the questions we need to -- to answer. MS. HEYSE: Can you clarify your -MS. STANYAR: I can explain it. So -- so -MS. HEYSE: -- your "pretty funky"? MS. STANYAR: Some of it is spacing. MS. COOPER: Some of the lines are missing, for some reason, sporadically throughout the brief. It doesn't look like that when you look at it, the PDF on the computer, but when you print it, there's a -- a ghost in the document or something that makes some of the lines disappear, but I -- I think I'm mainly going to be looking at the table of contents so I hope, for our purposes, that will be sufficient. MS. HEYSE: Well, I'm going to make an objection because we can't identify whether or not this is the actual document. It's missing information, so if you can't provide the actual full document, then I object. MS. STANYAR: We can on the laptop, okay, so -- but -- but let's -- let's go ahead and proceed with the questions. We'll see if it -- if it has anything (Page 148) to do with -MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. STANYAR: -- what the questions. It may not affect anything or have anything to do -MS. HEYSE: Certainly. Just be aware that I will instruct him -MS. STANYAR: I understand that. MS. HEYSE: -- not to answer anything on a page that has missing information. MS. STANYAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry to request. Can I have a brief bathroom break? MS. HEYSE: Yeah, yeah. THE WITNESS: My coffee is -MS. HEYSE: We need a -MS. COOPER: Okay. MS. STANYAR: Wait, wait. It's about the bathroom break request. MS. HEYSE: Yup, we need a break, please. THE WITNESS: It will be -MS. COOPER: You need a bathroom break right now? MS. HEYSE: Yup. MS. COOPER: Okay.

MS. HEYSE: Yes. (Page 149) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 12:52 p.m. We are off the record. (Off the record at 12:52 p.m.) (Back on the record at 1:04 p.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 1:04 p.m. We are back on the record. Please continue. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Thank you. Dr. Regnerus, I just have a few questions about what's been marked as Exhibit 10. It's the Amicus brief that you joined, and recognizing that it is in a -- it is missing some printing on it -- some lines in the printing, but I want to call your attention to the table of authorities which is italicized page iv is the beginning, and I think that table of authorities is complete and shouldn't be a problem, so if you can turn to that, please. A. Okay, yes. Q. So this is a table of authority that list some cases and then below that other authorities, and then there's a few pages of citations here, and my -- my question for you is have you read all of the sources listed under "Other Authorities"? A. Not all of them, no. Q. Okay. The ones that you didn't read, were tho -- were those sources that came from the other document you (Page 150) referenced earlier that you work off of? A. I mostly worked on Section 2, and so the authorities that pertain to Section 2 are authorities I'm more likely to have read. Q. Uh-huh. And focusing on Section 1, which if we look at the table of contents, the page italicized ii, under "Argument", point I says, "Compelling Evidence Shows that Children Benefit from the Unique Parenting Contributions of Both Men and Women." Did you draft that section as well? A. I'm looking at the section itself. I don't believe I drafted it. I edited it and added some content, perhaps, and some suggestions -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- but it's a section I was less likely to have read the authorities. Q. Section I was a section that you were less likely to have read the authorities? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Do you know who drafted Section I? A. I don't. Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the -- the body of research looking at the parenting contributions of both men and women? A. Not as much as I am familiar with the (Page 151) probability-based studies around child outcomes of same-sex parenting, less about the unique parenting -Q. Okay. A. -- which is why I did -Q. But -A. -- not author that part. Q. I'm sorry. I thought you were finished. Go ahead. A. That's why I did not author that part but rather edited. Q. I see. So in this case will you be offering the expert opinion that the absence of a male or female parent in same-sex families negatively affects children's development? A. I don't believe that's in my report. Q. Uh-huh. So -- so you won't be offering that opinion at trial? A. Could you repeat it? Q. Yeah. Well, will you be offering the expert opinion in this case that the absence of a male or female

parent in same-sex-parent families negatively affects children's development? A. The absence of a male or female parent in same-sex families? Q. Uh-huh. A. Insofar as I don't address it in the report, I don't (Page 152) anticipate doing so. Q. Okay. And -- and then maybe it would be helpful to -- to frame the question a different way. Will -will you be offering the expert opinion in this case that there are unique parenting contributions of men and women? A. It was my anticipation that I would stick more closely to the -- what can be known from the New Family Structure Study which is why I wrote the report in the way I did. Q. Uh-huh. So sitting here now, you are not planning on addressing at trial the -- anything about the unique parenting contributions of men and women? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Only insofar as it would overlap significantly with something that's already in my expert witness report. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Is there anything in your expert report about that that I'm overlooking possibly? A. I would have to take a few minutes to go through it but -- I don't anticipate it. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And is that, by the way, an area -- by that I mean the issue of unique contributions of men and women to parenting. Is that an area in which you (Page 153) feel qualified as an expert? A. Not qualified as an expert. Q. Okay. I'd like to talk a little bit about the sort of origin of the NFSS. Who -- who initiated that study? A. That question's been asked a variety of times and my recollection is, as reflected in Exhibit 8, is -- is pretty accurate. I'm trying to figure out where in -- I think it was Section, towards the bottom of that first page, I describe informal conversations about the project Q. Uh-huh. A. -- that I had with a variety of people including a representative of the Witherspoon Institute. That's how I got interested in it after I had completed the -- or largely completed the text of my second book. Q. Okay. Who was involved in the informal conversation about it that you mentioned there? A. Luis Tellez is the president of Witherspoon. He was involved with that. Brad Wilcox was involved. I believe Jason Carroll at some point was involved. Yeah. It developed slowly over, I don't know, a year, year and a half. Q. And -- and who had the first conversation with you at all about the idea among those people? (Page 154) A. I -- I'm not sure. Q. Uh-huh. And how did you get to know Luis Tellez at Witherspoon? A. I think that was by an introduction by Brad Wilcox. Q. So you already knew Brad before this study was contemplated; is that right? A. That is correct. Q. And the Witherspoon Institute, that's an advocacy organization; is that right? A. I don't think of them as an advocacy organization. I know they take political positions. They're kind of a great books organ -- research -- not research organization but sort of educational organization in Princeton. Q. But then do they have a position against marriage for same-sex couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I don't know if they have a stated position about it. I presume they are against it. BY MS. COOPER:

Q. So when -- so you think Brad Wilcox introduced you to Luis Tellez? A. I believe so. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and so who -- who asked you to (Page 155) ultimately -- or did somebody among this group, or anyone else, ask you to do the study? A. I don't think anybody asked me to do the study. At some point, after a series of conversations, it became obvious to me that they were open to receiving a proposal on a study like this one that I had described. Q. Uh-huh. A. The details of what that study would look like were pretty vague at that time, but the outline of it was a probability-based, large-end sample. Q. Uh-huh. So did the idea to do some kind of study of this nature come from you or from Tellez or somebody else? A. As I said, I -- it emerged from a series of conversations about what interesting research projects could be done, and the large-end, probability-based thing kept reemerging as I became familiar with the previous research in this area. Q. And so when you say "a series of conversations," that again is Tellez, Wilcox and you, and at some point Jason Carroll? A. Jason Carroll. There were other people who weighed in at different times. Ultimately, Jason and Brad became consultants on the project. Other people who might (Page 156) have been part of that conversation did not. Q. Uh-huh. And when you say "weighed in," you mean before the decision was made to actually do the study when you were just sort of discussing the possibility of it? A. Right. We talked about sort of what would make for an interesting project in this area -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and different people had their different ideas. Q. Uh-huh. And -- and among those others who weighed in, did that include Maggie Gallagher? A. She may have had an opinion at one point in time far back. Q. And Maddie Gallagher, she's with the National Organization for Marriage; is that right? A. I don't know what organization Maggie is with. She's -- floats around so far as I can tell. Q. Uh-huh. A. I don't recall what contribution she made. I just know at some point she had an opinion about the research in the area. Q. Uh-huh. Is she someone you know who is to be an advocate against marriage for same-sex couples? A. I know that is correct. Q. And you said she's had -- had opinions. Did you have (Page 157) direct conversations with her about all this? A. If I had direct conversations, probably one, and it would have been probably well before we conceived of the NFSS project. Q. Uh-huh. Tell me about that conversation. What was that about? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I frankly don't recall. BY MS. COOPER: Q. How did you meet her? A. I think there was a group of people who met in Washington, including the people I mentioned before, and several other people, and we just sort of shot the breeze for a day about the research in this broad area.

Q. Uh-huh. A. I think she was at that meeting. Q. When -- when was that meeting? A. I'm really guessing now. I want to say fall of 2009 maybe. I could be wrong about that. Q. Okay. And -- and who organized this meeting? A. I don't know who organized it. I believe Witherspoon paid our expenses. I don't recall who organized it. Q. Uh-huh. And tell me who was all there. A. I don't think I'll give you the full list because I (Page 158) don't recall it all. Q. Uh-huh. A. Jason Carroll, Brad Wilcox, myself, Luis Tellez, I think Maggie might have been at that meeting; Jason Carroll had a colleague at BYU, whose name is escaping me, who might have been present; Paul Vitz might have been present, I think. Q. What is the last name? A. Vitz, V-I-T-Z. Q. Okay. Uh-huh. What about Robert George? A. No, he was not there. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Anyone else you can recall? A. No. I'm sure there was one or two others but -Q. Okay. A. -- my mind's eye -Q. And what was the purpose of this meeting? A. Basically, just to get there and think about interesting study possibilities in this domain. Q. And by "in this domain," what -- what do you mean by this? A. The broader domain around marriage and relationships and things like that. Q. Specifically, same-sex-couples marriage and relationships? A. I don't think it was restricted to that. (Page 159) Q. Uh-huh. And during this meeting did you all conceptualize the idea or something like the NFSS? A. No. I think a -- a population-based, large-end sample study was talked about, and other people had other ideas. Q. Uh-huh. Did anyone at that meeting discuss the need for such research for purposes of litigation relating to marriage for same-sex couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I have no recollection of that. BY MS. COOPER: Q. When did you officially learn that you were going to be the principal investigator of the NFSS? A. I -- I believe it was after I formally submitted a proposal to Witherspoon, and that would have likely have been in the fall of 2010. Q. Uh-huh. And who was it who told you your proposal was accepted and -- and you would be the principal investigator? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: Luis Tellez. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. MS. HEYSE: Leslie, is there somebody else (Page 160) in the room with you? MS. COOPER: No, that's me shuffling papers. It's just me.

MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: Oh, you may have heard some people walking by a little bit loud outside in the hall. MS. HEYSE: Sure. MS. COOPER: No, just me. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So I want to just ask you a couple questions about Brad Wilcox's involvement in the study because I understand he was part of this initial discussion that ultimately led to having a study; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And -- and while you were -- and -- and he was one of the consultants, right, that worked with you on the study? A. That is correct. Q. And you guys -- you and Brad Wilcox communicated about study design and -- throughout the development of the project; is that right? A. At different points we did. I don't think it was consistent. Q. Is he the one that suggested publishing or seeking (Page 161) publication in Social Science Review? A. I'm sorry? Q. Is he the one suggested -- who suggested submitting the -- the manuscript to Social Science Review for publication? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: He may have. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And was he involved in fundraising efforts for the study? A. No. Q. Oh, okay. Was he involved in the media planning around the study? A. He gave me advice about -- yeah, he gave me advice about media planning. Q. I'm sorry. You drifted off. He gave you advice about -A. Media planning. Q. Media planning, gotcha. Did Robert George have any role in the study at any point? A. No. Q. Nope? He wasn't involved in the fundraising at all? A. I had -- I -- fundraising was not my domain so I have no idea about that. Q. Okay. Was anybody from the Ruth Institute involved in (Page 162) developing the study or talking to you about the study? A. Who are we talking about? Q. Do you know anybody who's associated with the Ruth Institute? A. I might. Q. Jennifer Morse Roback, do you know her? A. Jennifer Roback Morse? Q. I mean Robach-Morse, sorry. Yes. A. I have met her. Q. Uh-huh. A. She was not part of the -Q. Was she involved in the planning or discussion around the study? A. She was not. Q. Okay. Now, before you submitted your manuscript to Social Science Review, did you give it to anybody to take a look in advance?

A. I think you mean to Social Science Research? Q. Sorry. Is that the journal -A. Yeah. Q. -- social Science Research? Okay. Yeah, before you submitted it, did you have anybody else take a look at it first? A. I don't honestly recall. (Page 163) Q. Do -- do you remember specifically you -- if you showed a draft to Maggie Gallagher? A. That I'm sure I did not do. Q. Okay. All right. I'd like to -- Carole, can you hand out document 22. Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, document 22. For the record, it's an e-mail to Mark Regnerus dated December 22, 2010, from -MS. HEYSE: From? MS. COOPER: Luis, L-U-I-S. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 11 12 1:25 p.m. MS. HEYSE: What number? COURT REPORTER: Oh, I'm sorry, 11. MS. HEYSE: Okay. Thank you. MS. STANYAR: Okay. He has it. MS. COOPER: You got it? MS. STANYAR: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Do you recognize -- well, actually, the document shows two e-mails, but I'm looking at the one that's sort of halfway down the page dated September 22nd to you, subject line, "Next Step." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Is that an e-mail you received from Luis Tellez? (Page 164) A. Apparently so. Q. I heard some background noise. I didn't hear you. A. Apparently so. Q. Yeah. Okay. And if you'll read along with me, starting at the second sentence: "Naturally we would like to move along as expeditiously as possible but experience suggests we ought not get hung up with deadlines, do what is right and best, move on it, don't dilly dolly, etc . . . It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court but that is secondary to the need to do this and do it well . . . I would like you to take ownership and think of how would you want it done . . .rather than someone like me dictating parameters . . . but, of course, here to help. Luis." Is that -- well, first of all, so Luis Tellez, he's with the Witherspoon Institute, right? A. Yes. Q. Is he also involved with the group, National Organization for Marriage? A. He probably wears that hat. I'm not sure what role his -- he has over there. Q. Okay. What major decision of the Supreme Court did (Page 165) you understand him to be referring to? A. I have no idea. That was Luis' statement and not mine. Q. Uh-huh. So this is the first you heard from anyone at Witherspoon that they wanted results from your study before decisions from the Supreme Court? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I don't recall. BY MS. COOPER:

Q. Uh-huh. So you just don't remember one way or the other? A. This is the only one that I have seen. Q. Uh-huh. What about after this? Had you heard anything subsequent to this from Witherspoon or anyone else involved with the project about wanting results before a Supreme Court decision? A. No, not that I recall. Q. Okay. Can we look -- or, Carole, can you hand out document 21? And for the court reporter, the -let's call this -COURT REPORTER: Twelve. MS. COOPER: -- or identify this as -COURT REPORTER: Twelve. MS. COOPER: Well -MS. STANYAR: We on 12? (Page 166) COURT REPORTER: Yes. MS. COOPER: No, 21. Well, we're on 12, yes. MS. STANYAR: Yes. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 12 1:28 p.m. BY MS. COOPER: Q. It's identified as an e-mail from Wilcox to Mark Regnerus, but you will correct me if I mischaracterize that. Let me know when he has it. MS. STANYAR: He has it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So do you recognize this e-mail? A. Not offhand, but if you give me a few minutes to read it -Q. Sure. A. Yes. Q. Okay. So is -- do I understand correctly that this is Brad Wilcox's responses to some questions you asked him in a prior e-mail? A. Correct. Q. Okay. You wrote your e-mail to him on September 21st, 2010. The document doesn't indicate the date of of (Page 167) his response. So a couple questions about this. So it looks like you were asking him a series of questions about the project such as, you know, number one, you say -- well, actually, at the beginning you say: "Brad, "Ok, so let me process some of this. I need to have my stuff together before I approach Mark Hayward, perhaps early next week if I'm clear about things. "Tell me if any of these aren't correct. "Number 1. We want to run this project through UT's PRC. I'm presuming 10% overhead is acceptable to Witherspoon." This is a question you were asking him about whether Witherspoon would approve an overhead cost; is that right? A. As I said, I -- it was a statement I'm presuming that that is acceptable to them. Q. Okay. And -- and he wrote in the capital letters after, "YES"; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then just, for example, for number 2 you wrote: "We want a broad coalition comprising several (Page 168) scholars from across the spectrum of opinions about same-sex relationships/marriage including folks from UT and PSU. We'll bounce around some names, a few of which include people like Paul Amato, Cynthia Osborne, et cetera. I'll be curious about Mark H's recommendations too. He's well connected and perhaps has some capital with Paul. Certainly there are enough family demographers at Penn State that we will get interest." And there's capital letters Y-E-S, "YES." Is that Brad Wilcox

agreeing with you? Is that what your understanding of that -A. It sounds like it, yes. Q. Okay. I don't need to go through all of them. I just want to get an understanding of what kind of documents but -- by the way, who is Mark Hayward? A. He's the director of the Population Research Center at UT. Q. Okay. And so -- so Brad Wilcox was answering questions of yours on behalf of Witherspoon? Is that what's going on? A. I don't think so. I mean, he's -- I never associated him with Witherspoon. I -- I -- I knew that he -- I mean, he's the one who introduced him to me, so that (Page 169) was a statement just saying I presume this is fine. I don't know if he asked Luis or not but -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- he just made a response to it. Q. Is it your understanding he was sort of an intermediary, then, between you and Witherspoon? A. Early on I didn't know Luis so I think if there was any correspondence, it would have been through him, but -- because -Q. Through Brad? A. Right. Q. Is that right? Is that -- is that the "him" you meant, Brad Wilcox? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Gotcha. So I'd like to scroll down to the bottom, the last paragraph where it says -- you got it? A. Yes. Q. That says: "I would like at some point to get more feedback from Luis and Maggie about the 'boundaries' around this project, not just cost but also their optimal time line (for the coalition meeting, the data collection, etc.) and their hopes for what emerges from this project, including the early (Page 170) report we discussed in DC. Feel free to forward this to them. "Thanks, Mark." You wrote that? A. Yes. Q. So is Maggie -- Maggie Gallagher, is that who you're talking about here? A. I presume so. Q. And the Luis would be Luis -- Luis Tellez of Witherspoon? A. Yes, yes. Q. Do you know what you meant by the word "boundaries" in quote -- quotes in that paragraph? A. Right. Well, it partly meant sort of the upper limits of costs that they were willing to incur because around this time I had been starting to inquire about costs of a large, random population-based study. Q. Okay. A. So when -- when I said not just costs, but their al -- also, their optimal timeline, like when would they like a report from this project? Q. Uh-huh. And -- and why is -- why is Maggie's view relevant? What was her role here that you want to know their costs and timeline? A. Frankly, it was about the last time I ever mentioned (Page 171) her. She -- you know, I don't recall asking her for any subsequent feedback. It was probably a reference to some conversation that we had had as a group at that Washington meeting, but I -- I -- I frankly can't remember, and so far as I recall, that was the end of her role in anything that had to do with this study. Q. Okay. But when you were asking about boundaries that related to cost, did Maggie, at least up until that time, have some role in the funding? A. That I don't know. Q. Uh-huh. But Luis and Maggie were the two people whose opinions you thought mattered about

funding boundaries and timelines; is that right? A. In this piece of correspondence, I was inquiring about -- I didn't inquire of them. I said I might want to get more feedback from them at some point. Q. Uh-huh. A. I'm confident that I -- I didn't get any more feedback from Maggie, nor did I seek it. Q. Uh-huh. So you never found out what her optimal timeline would be? A. No. Q. What about Luis Tellez? A. An optimal timeline here is for the return of a a written report of the results of this study. At (Page 172) one -- I mean, it was a moving target. You know, when you conduct a project, you think okay, we run the data, analyze it, write it, and issue a report, and I wanted -- and since I was between projects but I didn't want this to last forever, I wanted a -- a timeline for when this report should be returned. Q. Uh-huh. And in the last line of this paragraph, yo8 refer to "the early report we discussed in DC." What did you mean by that? A. I -- I'm guessing that means the sort of -- the -- I had always intended to write a report based on the findings of the NFSS. Q. Uh-huh. A. So I was going to write that report. I had intended to coauthor it with Cynthia Osborne and then we would submit it as our publication for this project. Q. Uh-huh. But the word "early" is what I'm -- I'm wondering about. A. That -- yeah. I couldn't tell you what -- you know, I couldn't tell you what that means. Q. So, originally, you were planning on coauthoring it with Cynthia Osborne. What -- what -- what changed? Why didn't she end up being a coauthor? A. A report, yeah. After I decided to submit an article to the journal for possible publication, I wanted to (Page 173) wait and see what happened to that first, and then after that I was going to write a report. Once that publication was either accepted or rejected, I had in my mind a timeline for this -- this report that was going to be -- come from the study, and Cynthia and I were going to kind of coauthor it and then back and forth, commentary manner, but that didn't happen. Q. And why not? A. It -- it was still in planning stages until after the publication of the Social Science Research article, and then when intense interest came about, I decided, well, it's going to be a hard environment to write this report, and so Cynthia and I talked about it and just sort of said, okay, we're not going to write that report. Q. Was it that she backed out or did you ask her not to join you? A. It didn't get written so I think we mutually agreed, like, well, you know, this is probably not a good time to do this, and so I don't think that bothered her. Q. So just so I understand, so it was never the plan that she would coauthor the study that was published in Social Science Research; it was just contemplated that she would coauthor a separate report? A. That's correct. (Page 174) Q. And what do you mean by "report"? Because I guess I had understood that to mean something simultaneous with a -- something synonymous, rather, with a study to a journal. What kind of report did you mean? A. It was going to be through -- more outcomes because there's more outcomes in a day than we used. It was going to have appendices of regression results. It was going to be sort of in a PDF format, self -self-published. I was going to look for a graphic artist. So like reports that organizations issue, and it was going to summarize the findings and then Cynthia and I were going to sort of have a dialogue in that report. Q. A dialogue about what? Having different perspectives or just --

A. What we saw in the data and things like that. I mean, it never did get written. I mean, not even drafted. I kept pushing it off, and then after the publication of the article, it seemed like, well, maybe that was not going to happen, but I anticipated writing it until after all the hub-bub kicked up. Q. What was it about the hub-bub that led you and Cynthia Osborne to conclude not to do the report? A. It was taking a lot of my time, the -- sort of all the attention that the study had gotten, and, you know, (Page 175) there was a lot of negative flack, and it just was not a positive studious environment for me to write a report or for me to ask Cynthia to join me in that. I didn't think she was interested at that point. Q. Now, when you got the funding from Witherspoon, was having a report part of the project? Is that something they wanted? A. Yes. Q. And -- and, again, by report, I mean this kind of report that you anticipated doing with Cynthia Osborne as opposed to your peer-reviewed publication in Social Science -A. That is correct. Q. -- Review; is that right? A. Yup. Q. Okay. So I'll go ahead and ask this. How does that work? You got funded to do a report but then you didn't produce the report. Did you have to return the funding to Witherspoon? A. No. Suffice it to say that I just informed them that I was not going to be writing a report and that the article that came out -- and at that time I had not started working on the follow-up. That was not conceived at that point. I just -- at that point, I thought, well, this article is what I've written on (Page 176) the subject. It was not what I anticipated but that's what I informed them. Q. And were they okay with that? A. Yes. Q. What led you to decide to submit it for publication with Social Science Research rather than do the report? A. I had kept pushing back the report deadline in my mind. I -- I couldn't tell you exact dates but, you know, there had been sort of January 2012 and then it became March and -- in my mind, and then it became May and then it became September, but in -- I think it was in November of 2011 I started crunching the numbers and then the idea occurred to either Brad or I -- it might have been Brad, I'm not sure -- well, maybe I should submit this as a journal article. It -- it genuinely had -- I mean, I had been working in report mode up until that time, but at some point I decided, well, let's try it as an article. One of the reasons I went to Social Science Research is because they are interested in sort of -- they historically have been interested in novel either research questions or new data, and so I thought, well, maybe they'd be interested in it. Q. Okay. All right. (Page 177) Carole, can you take out document 30? And, for identification, I'll call that a February 7, 2012 e-mail from Mark Regnerus to Paul Amato, and a -- a subsequent e-mail from Amato to Regnerus. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 13 1:44 p.m. MS. STANYAR: What exhibit number is that? COURT REPORTER: Thirteen. MS. STANYAR: He has it now. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Great. So there are a couple of e-mails on here. I'd like actually to scroll down to the bottom to the one that says R-E -- well, actually, it says from Mark Regnerus to Paul Amato and there's a date up in the right-hand corner, 2/2/2012. Do you see where I am?

A. Yes. Q. Is this an e-mail you wrote to Paul Amato? A. Looks like it. Q. Okay. Just a few questions about that. If you look at the second paragraph and read along with me: "About the manuscript, I'm happy to send it to you; it's attached. First, some background: I approached Jim Wright at Social Science (Page 178) Research." Is that a correct abbreviation? A. Yes. Q. -- "in December and asked him if he'd consider both reviewing the overview manuscript (on group differences on 40 outcomes) and if he'd be speedy about it. I asked him because I know he was a friend of Steve Nock's and published your letter about him. Basically, this is my one chance" -- one second. "Basically, this is my one chance of getting a peer-reviewed journal article that could, maybe be released online before the report. As I did the data analyses of earlier data editions in November/December, I realized that the report may well bring me trouble, professionally, and at that point I thought if I could squeeze out a peer-reviewed article instead/first, that would be nice, would limit criticism (at least a bit). But it's a risk I chose to take when I signed up to run the project -- that I would tell what the data say. And I'm fine with that. Just want to be rigorous." So you wrote that to Paul Amato; is that right? A. Yes. Q. So it appears as though that you're talking about (Page 179) wanting to get an online -- I'm sorry -- a peer-reviewed article out ahead of the report to limit criticism. Can you say what you meant by that? A. In general, my thought at the time, and it generally remains true, is, you know, a report can always be dismissed as, well, that's just somebody's analyses. It's not peer-reviewed, et cetera, and I thought, well, if I could get a peer-reviewed article out of it, well, that would be a positive thing, and people are more likely to pay attention and give legitimacy to a peer-reviewed article than a non-peer-reviewed2 article. Q. Uh-huh. Was -- was there some concern you had that Witherspoon was going to release findings before a certain date? A. No. It -- just in my mind, I was always going to have this report to write and I wanted to move on to other things, and so I wanted to -- to -- to get this moving along, but as the text indicates, I kept pushing back the report. Q. Well, it says here you -- you asked if Jim Wright would be speedy about it, was there a chance at getting a study released before the report, so was there some deadline that was looming about a report -A. Only my own internal deadlines -- (Page 180) Q. -- that you wanted -A. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. Could you repeat that question? Q. Yes. It says here you asked Jim Wright to be speedy about it. It -- it sounds like you -- I understand that you're saying you wanted to get the peer-reviewed journal published, if possible, before the report. Was there a deadline for the report looming that you were trying to beat? A. My own deadline. Q. Uh-huh. A. Which at that -Q. What was that? A. -- point was probably March or May, I suspect, but, yeah -Q. Of what year? A. That would have been of 2012. Q. Yeah, okay. So Witherspoon didn't give you a deadline? A. No. I had given them a deadline and then I kept moving it, but I wanted to keep my deadlines, and I don't like when I don't make my deadlines, but I kept pushing it back a little bit.

Q. Uh-huh. So did you -- you spoke to Jim Wright at Social Science Research directly about this? (Page 181) A. I wrote him an e-mail. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And did you tell him why you wanted a speedy publication? A. I believe I mentioned that I was intending to write a report and that I had a deadline that I was working with, and I wanted to know, you know, if he'd agree to give it a quick review. He was under no obligations, of course, of doing so. I just wanted to know. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Going back to Exhibit 13, your e-mail to Paul Amato, if you go to the second to last paragraph, I'll just read the whole thing. "I'm sure your curiosity is even more piqued now. Please do not circulate the ms, though. I think it's reasonable, balanced, not flawless, and I'm flexible in how I talk about the different groups. But the reality of the numbers isn't going anywhere, regardless of how I talk about the same-sex relationship groups (esp the women). And that's in part why I'm putting it in the journal queue, even though the data collection isn't fully done. I can't see how it would change things. I'll update the tables after the final version comes in." Just so that I understand, when you say "putting it in the journal queue," do you mean submit (Page 182) for publication at a journal? A. Yes. Q. And that was Social Science Research? A. Yes. Q. That was the journal. So you put this in -- submitted it for publication before the data collection was complete? A. Yes. Q. Is that something that is -- that you've done before? A. I don't know if I've done it before. I know it is not uncommon because some data collection projects are ongoing. One example is the Online College Social Life Survey collected by Paula England, or she adds to the data insofar as people submit new cases to her. She's closed it now, but some data collection projects are ongoing, and in this case the nationals were pretty robust and I knew the rate at which new cases were coming in, and it was pretty slow at the end and so I had already worked on the -- the paper and done the initial results. There were not that many more cases that came in afterwards, and the key -key groups, namely the respondents who have the same-sex relationship -- their parents have the samesex relationship with a member of the opposite sex -- I'm sorry -- of the same (Page 183) sex. So at that point me, wanting to keep my report commitments in the future, decided to submit the -- the manuscript prior to the complete conclusion of the data. I was talking to Knowledge Networks at this point and aware of where they were at in the final stages of data collection, and I was confident that the story was not going to change in the findings, and that is correct, it did not change, but the final version had all of the data in it. MS. HEYSE: Leslie, we are actually probably pretty close to -VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Yes. I need to change all the media now. MS. HEYSE: Okay. Yeah. So we're -VIDEO TECHNICIAN: I'll need several minutes. MS. HEYSE: We need to do a break for tape change. MS. COOPER: Okay. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 1:51 p.m. We are off the record for media change. (Recess was taken at 1:51 p.m.) (Back on the record at 2:05 p.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It's 2:05 p.m. We are back on the record. Please continue. (Page 184) MS. COOPER: Thank you. BY MS. COOPER:

Q. Dr. Regnerus, you may have stated before and I just don't recall. When did you submit the manuscript for the NFSS study for publication with Social Science Research? A. I'm going to not recall the exact timing. I presume it shows up on the document itself. Q. Well, if we can all look together at Exhibit 5, maybe you can make -- help clarify here. It has a section on the front page. Do you have in front of you -A. Right. Q. -- Exhibit 5 -A. This would indicate -Q. -- Article History. A. Right. This would indicate that they received it the1st of February 2012. Q. Okay. And so that's when you sent it to them? A. I don't know it's when I sent it in to them. It's when they registered receiving it. Q. Okay. Now, you had asked Wright for a speedy review. Did he agree to do a speedy review? A. I don't recall what he said. He agreed to review it. When I wrote it, you know, you say -- you can say whatever you want, but the reality is these things (Page 185) tend to last much longer but that was not the case in this situation, but he did not -- I don't know that he agreed to a speedy review. He may have. Q. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. So going back to article history, it says "Received 1 February 2012, Revised 29 February 2012, Accepted 12 March 2012." Is that last date the date that the journal tells you we've accepted it for publication? Is that what that represents? A. I don't know if that's when they tell me. That's when they formally have decided to accept it. Q. Okay. And then when was it actually published? A. It's in the July 2012 issue, which the online version came out June 12, I believe. Q. June 12. Who were the -- or -- or -- or do you know who -- who the reviewers were, who did the peer review? A. Nobody ever informed me of the reviewers. Q. You don't know who -- who any of them are? A. I guessed at a few but I was never informed of them. Q. Do you know whether Brad Wilcox was one? A. I'm guessing he may have been. I was never informed that he was. Q. Why are you guessing then? A. Because a lot of people have talked about it and I -- (Page 186) I assume they got some of that from - from the audit. Q. Uh-huh. But Brad Wilcox never told you that himself? A. No. Q. If he did, is that typical for someone who's involved in designing and planning the study to review an article for -- prior to publication? A. I frankly don't know. I don't know. MS. COOPER: Let's now take, Carole, document 20 -- I don't think we've marked that yet -- and mark that as Exhibit 14, and that is, for identification, an April 5th, 2011 letter from Luis Tellez to Dan Schmidt. MS. STANYAR: Oh, wait. I'm sorry. MS. COOPER: Bradley Foundation. MS. STANYAR: Wait. Hold on a second. Oh, no, it is, yup. The cover is "A Request for Funding Prepared by -- "Prepared for the Lynde", that's the cover sheet. MS. COOPER: That's right. MS. STANYAR: Okay.

MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 14 2:10 p.m. MS. COOPER: Do you all have that? MS. STANYAR: Yes, everyone has it now. (Page 187) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Oh, good. First of all, have you seen this document before, Dr. Regnerus? A. I think so. Q. Okay. And it's a -- a letter from Luis Tellez who's the president of the Witherspoon Institute to Dr. Dan Schmidt of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And it's dated April 5th, 2011. I'd like to -- well, first of all, do you -- do you remember how you came to see it? Who showed it to you? A. I don't know. It might -- Luis may have sent it to me when he solicited Bradley, but I don't know. Q. Okay. If I could turn your attention to the first page of the letter itself, not the cover page but the letter, towards the bottom, the second to the last paragraph, starting there, if you'll read along with me: "The NFSS will be the first scientifically sound study to examine whether young adults raised by samesex parents fare as well as those raised in different familial settings. "This is the question that must now be answered -- in a scientifically serious way by (Page 188) those who are in favor of traditional marriage." Stopping right there, a -- first of all, would you call yourself to be -- consider yourself to be in favor of traditional marriage? MS. HEYSE: Ob -- objection. That's been asked and answered several times. THE WITNESS: I stated earlier that I was a fan of retaining the current boundaries. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Now, by April 5th when this -- 2011, the date of this letter, had it already been determined that you would be the principal investigator of the study? A. Yes. Q. Did Tellez know you were in favor of traditional marriage when he wrote this? MS. HEYSE: Objection, that calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I presume so, but I don't know. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Well, let me ask a -- a different one. Had you ever communicated to Tellez before he wrote this letter, or after, that you were in favor of traditional marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I cannot recall any particular (Page 189) conversation, but I presume he knew. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Why do you presume that? A. Because it was never a -- a subject of dispute between us so far as I can recall. Q. Well, did it come up in conversation ever? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: It may have. I don't recall. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. But your understanding is he was aware of -- of your views in support of traditional marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. COOPER:

Q. So if we can now look at another passage, second page, third full paragraph beginning, "As you know," okay? MS. HEYSE: And I'm going to object to the extent of this is hearsay that it's -- Dr. Regnerus is not involved at all in this communication, so there are foundational issues as well. But you can go ahead and continue. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So if you'll read along with me: "As you know, the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain. It is (Page 190) essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society. That is what the NFSS is designed to do. Our first goal is to seek the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Nevertheless, we are confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study as long as it is done honestly and well. However, this project is very large, and it cannot be undertaken unless it obtains substantial financial support from the philanthropic community." And then let me just jump down to the last paragraph that I'd like to call your attention to. It says: "We are very grateful for The Bradley Foundation's consideration of this request. Mark Regnerus, Robby George, Brad Wilcox, and I would be happy to work with the Bradley Foundation to identify other funding partners." So just a couple of questions. Did you agree with Tellez at the outset that -- this is before the - well, actually, let me make sure I understand the timing right. This is April 5th that (Page 191) he wrote this letter. At this point, you hadn't collected any data yet on -- on the NFSS; is that right? A. That is correct. Q. Yeah. Did you share his understanding at this time that the traditional understanding of marriage would be vindicated by your study? A. I did not share that. Q. Uh-huh. Do you know his basis for saying that? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: If I can point out in Exhibit 8, question at the bottom of the first page, I say: "And honestly my bet was that it would be a far more mixed set of results, with many null findings." That reflects sort of my assumption going forward, as somebody who has analyzed plenty of data in the past, that studies are quite often not what people think they're going to be. You're correct that Luis was stating something that was pretty confident that I did not share at the time. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. So -- so by this point, April 5th, 2011, he hadn't asked -- or -- or -- actually, did he ask you (Page 192) what you anticipated the results to be? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I highly doubt -- we hadn't even gone in the field yet and hadn't settled on survey questionnaire wording, and even the design was still open to consideration -- final consideration. To me, this document is Luis trying to raise money, and it had nothing to do with me. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. By April 5th, 2011, had you decided that the way you were going to get your gay father and lesbian mother samples was to ask if an individual's parents had a same-sex relationship ever during the course of the childhood? A. I cannot say for sure. In January 2011 those were the initial conversations. I don't recall exactly what we concluded about that, but I'm sure that the framework for it was suggested by that point in time, but it wasn't until I'm pretty -- either June or July that we went to the field, so when that got finalized, I'm not sure. Q. Okay. Now, in this letter Tellez says that -- that you're happy to work with them to identify funding

partners. Is that something you had agreed to help do? (Page 193) A. That's Luis' words, not mine. Q. So you hadn't told him you were willing to do that? A. Not that I recall. Q. Okay. So you never did any fundraising efforts? A. I may have written Bradley a note saying we stand -- you know -- or -- I might have written Bradley a e-mail or a note saying we're interested in your participation, but beyond that, I had no correspondence about funding and even that, I don't recall if I did or not. Q. So -- so besides the -- that possibility of you're not sure if you wrote a note to Bradley, you didn't write to anybody else to try to get funding or call anybody else? A. I don't recall. MS. COOPER: Uh-huh. Carole, if you could take out document 31, and we have -- let's mark this as Exhibit 15, and I'll identify it as "Mark Regnerus' Media Training." MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 15 2:20 p.m. MS. STANYAR: Everybody has it. MS. HEYSE: Yes. (Page 194) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So this is a few pages. Let's start with the first page, "Mark Regnerus Media Training"? Do you recognize this document? A. I do. Q. Great. And if we can look at the second page beginning with the question whether gay couples should be able to adopt children, do you recognize that page as well? A. I think. Q. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. A. I think so. Q. Okay. And is that part of the same document, or is that a different document? A. It looks like it's connected to the last document. Q. Okay. The -- the third page it says at the top -- sorry about the marks on it. I don't know where that came from. But it says "Questions for YouTube videos." Do you recognize that page? A. I do. Q. Uh-huh. And at the bottom of that page it has some text beginning with the words, "The study is not about parenting per se." And then that carries over to the next page. Is that part of the same document? A. Part of the same document as the "Questions for (Page 195) YouTube videos" part? Q. Yes. A. I am not sure. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. But -- but you've seen all these different pages here. You're just not sure if -A. Yes. Q. -- it's part of a separate -A. Yes. Q. -- or one document; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. So do you know who wrote any of these pages? A. Right. I assume the second two pages, the last two pages, are mine. I intended to make some -- I forget -- I don't remember the timeline. I think it was before the study came out, answer some questions about this on video in, I don't know, one, two, six, short clips, and this -- the last two pages look like me

starting to construct my first draft answers to what I would say on video in answer to some of these questions. Q. Uh-huh. All right. So when you say "the second two pages," you mean the one beginning with the words, "Questions for YouTube videos," and then carrying over to the following page? A. Correct. (Page 196) Q. Okay. So those two pages you wrote? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. Now, what about the first two pages, the one that says "Mark Regnerus Media Training." Who wrote that? A. I think Heritage Foundation wrote that. Q. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. Which foundation? A. I believe the Heritage Foundation wrote that. Q. Heritage Foundation, okay. What is that group? A. The Heritage Foundation? Q. Uh-huh. A. They're a conservative think tank in Washington. Q. Okay. So when did you see this document? A. This is something they gave me and -- I -- I believe either June 12 or June 11 as the study was being issued. I gave a short presentation on the findings there. Q. June -- June 12 or June 11 of 2012? A. Yes, day before the study was coming out, or two days before. I forget. Q. Uh-huh. A. And they offered me media training advice that I did not take, and I think this is their document. Q. Okay. Who -- who from Heritage or -- or who gave it to you? (Page 197) A. I don't know who wrote it. Q. Who -- who -- who sent it to you or handed it to you? A. It must have -- I mean, it would have been in a document on e-mail, but I don't know. Q. Was it unsolicited? They just sent you something telling you how you should talk about your study? A. Yes. Q. Was it -- what did you do with it once you received it? A. I think I put it in a folder in some floppy disk or, you know -- and ignored it. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So they were suggesting responses to questions and talking points? A. It appears to be. Q. Yeah. But you didn't take them into consideration? A. As soon as the study came out, I -- I might have done one or two appearances, and then I just decided not to -- not to say a whole lot at that point or be very picky about -- I'm sorry. My mike just came off. Q. And -- and when you didn't -MS. STANYAR: Wait, Leslie. Wait, wait. Leslie, wait. MS. HEYSE: Hold on just a second. The doctor's mike came off. MS. STANYAR: His mike came off. Just wait (Page 198) a minute. MS. COOPER: Okay. MS. STANYAR: Okay. THE WITNESS: All right. MS. STANYAR: You can go ahead. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. So in these "Key Points to Make" and the "Points to Avoid/Hard Questions" that they

identified, you did not rely on their media training MS. HEYSE: Objection. Objection, asked and answered. He's already stated he did not rely on this document. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. I -- I probably read it but I don't recall it ever being influential my subsequent media appearances. Q. Okay. Do you know who at Heritage put this together? A. I don't. Q. Okay. Did you -- did you ever respond to whoever sent this to you to tell them you disagree with any of it? A. I have no recollection of it. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Turning to the part that you wrote, "Questions for YouTube videos," and the subsequent page, so you -- you talked about this before, but what -- you had been -- were you saying you -- you had been (Page 199) thinking of doing a series of YouTube videos to explain the study, and that's what this is referencing? A. Yes. Q. Uh-huh. But you never did them? A. We filmed them and I never released them. I, frankly, don't know if they're available or not. Q. And when you say "we," who worked with you on that? A. Videographer. Q. Who hired the videographer? A. I think he did it for free. Q. Uh-huh. Whose idea was it to -- to do the videos? A. Mine. Q. Uh-huh. You're a professor at -- at UT right now, right? You've been there for a while, since -- I have your CV here. I should open it if I'm going to ask you these questions on it. Hold on. Since 2007, you've been -- I'm sorry. Since 2002 you've been at UT; is that right? A. Correct. Q. But since 2007 associate professor of sociology? A. Yes. Q. Now, before coming to UT, you were assistant professor of sociology and director of the Center for Social Research at Calvin College; is that right? (Page 200) A. Correct. Q. And Calvin College, that's a Christian college? A. It is. Q. And I'm wondering, was serving a -- I should say were -- was it a condition of employment there to -to share a particular set of religious beliefs? A. My recollection at Calvin is that you agreed to maintain affiliation or active participation in a -- one of a small number of denominations. Q. Uh-huh. And at -- at the time were you affiliated with one of the denominations that was on their list? A. When I was at Calvin, we participated in one of those denominations, yes. Q. Okay. And while you were a professor there, did you -- did you teach classes? Was that part of what your responsibilities were? A. Yes, I taught one class. Q. And did you help with research? A. I was expected to do research and to encourage other social science faculty to do their research as

well; you know, help make it possible for them. Q. Hold on just a minute. I'm hearing a lot of noise outside and I just want to ask people to be quiet. Hold on one second. Sorry about that. They moved. (Page 201) When -- when you were teaching there, was your curriculum and pedagogy shaped by Christian faith? A. Probably. I don't know. That was eleven-plus years ago. I know that's an expectation of people at Calvin, and I presume that I had either written a document towards that end or professed to -- to do that there, but I'm not sure I even recall what class I taught. Q. Uh-huh. So -- you broke up a little bit at the beginning. You said you think that was a requirement of -- of teaching there, or did I mishear that? A. That's kind of a -- a -- you know, they -- they talk a lot about that at Calvin College, and I think for tenure you have to write a document outlining how you are doing that, but I have little recollection of what I said or did at Calvin College. Q. Okay. Do you know if you wrote that kind of document? A. Not the kind of document that is required for tenure there. I may have mentioned something in my job application letter and in my interview. What I said, I have no recollection. Q. Okay. It was only ten years ago. So you've talked about personal views that you have about marriage for same-sex couples, but I want to ask you if you have (Page 202) any religious-based views about same-sex marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. You can answer. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understood the question. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Well, do you have any current religious views relating to marriage for same-sex couples? A. I have religious views and membership. I'm sure that's a -- a -- a component in my wider understanding of marriage. Q. And does your personal faith support or -- or oppose the inclusion of same-sex couples within marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I'm Roman Catholic and official Catholic teaching on the matter is not in favor of it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And do you share that -- I understand, you know, being affiliated with a particular religious faith doesn't necessarily mean every individual shares every aspect of it. Do you share that view of the Roman Catholic faith that opposes marriage for same-sex couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection. I believe he answered that question a long time ago, and it's not (Page 203) relevant. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. When I joined the church, at confirmation you say you profess to uphold their teachings in general, so I said I'd abide by it. Q. And do you have any religious views relating to the use of assisted reproduction? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I don't have a whole lot of understanding about assisted reproductive technology. I -- if the Church has an opinion about it, I -- I said I'd agree to uphold it, but I'm, myself, largely past childbearing in our family so I don't think much about it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. So are you aware of the church's position, if they have one, on assisted reproduction? A. I'm aware of it.

Q. What -- what is that position? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: They, generally speaking -- I don't know the details around it, but they're not fans of artificial reproductive technology. (Page 204) BY MS. COOPER: Q. And putting aside the issue of marriage for same-sex couples, do you have any religious beliefs about same-sex sexual relationships? A. Insofar as the Church asserts that sexual relationships outside of marriage are wrong, I -- as I mentioned earlier, when I was confirmed I agreed to abide by that teaching. Q. Uh-huh. So -- so you agree, as a matter of faith, that -- that same-sex relationships -- or I should say relationships out of heterosexual marriages -- sexual relationships, are wrong? A. I agree as a matter of affiliation. Q. I'm not sure I understand that. Is -- is that different than holding a personal religious belief to agree as a matter of affiliation? A. It's a little bit different, I think. As I mention, you know, you agree to abide by the teachings of the Church when you become Catholic, and so that's what I agreed to do, so in that sense it's a matter of affiliation. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And -- and this is something you agreed as an adult, not as a child? A. Correct. MS. COOPER: Carole, can you pull out (Page 205) document 32? For identification, let's call it Trinity Christian College alumni profile, and mark that as Exhibit 16. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 16 2:38 p.m. MS. COOPER: Is that marked? COURT REPORTER: Yes. MS. STANYAR: It is. MS. COOPER: Okay. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And you have that in front of you, Dr. Regnerus? A. I do. Q. Have you seen this before? A. Yes. Q. Is this a -- from the -- your -- your alma mater alumni magazine? Is that where it came from? A. It appears to be so. You don't happen to -- to have the date on it, do you? Q. I don't. I was going to ask you the same thing. Do you -- do you remember when this was done? A. No. I'm betting it's closer to 2002 than to 2014. Q. And is this -- there's some quotes from you in this profile. Did somebody interview you to write this? A. It sounds that way. I don't actually recall the -- (Page 206) the actual interview. Q. Okay. Now, the -- the title says "Mark Regnerus '93 Connecting Work and Faith," so I take it you graduated from Trinity Christian College in 1993; is that right? A. Yup. Q. And the title, "Connecting Work and Faith," is that a title you approved? A. I think that's probably their worth -- words. Q. Okay. All right. I'd like to have you look down toward the middle of the page, this paragraph beginning, "As Christians." A. Uh-huh.

Q. If you'll read along with me. A. Yes. Q. It's a quote: "'As Christians, our lives should reflect our relationship with God and our desire to glorify him,' Regnerus says. 'I've noticed that some Christian professors see a disconnect between their faith and their profession. I believe that if your faith matters, it should inform what you teach and what you research.'" Sorry about that outside noise. MS. STANYAR: We really can't hear very much of it. Don't worry about it. (Page 207) MS. COOPER: Okay. Good. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'll continue on to the next paragraph. "'I've had students here tell me that I'm the only Christian professor they've had. I'm not approved to share the Gospel, but I don't necessarily hide my beliefs either. When I teach, I don't seek to break down or build up any particular faith, but my worldview colors what I do in the classroom.'" So did -- do you still agree with -- with those statements? A. It definitely reflects an earlier version of myself. Trinity, like Calvin College, is sort of big into the integration of faith and scholarship. I don't always know what I'm -- I'm referring to when I said this, what, ten years ago probably, when it says if your faith matters, you should inform what you teach and what you research. I know that in my case, you know, it has interested me in the study of religion which is what I used to study, now in the study of relationships, so, you know, in -- I'm sure it -- it affects the subject matter I'm interested in. It doesn't really seem to shape the kinds of questions I put to things or how I do research. (Page 208) Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And if you scroll down a little further, second paragraph to -- well, actually, third paragraph from the bottom, it says: "When he compares his year at a private, Christian college with his time thus far at Texas, Regnerus appreciates the environment of the large public institution. He sees it as a fertile ground to display his steadfast spiritual commitment in a place that demonstrates a lack of that commitment." "'I like the tension of the anti-faith atmosphere that big state universities present. I've heard how professors totally dismiss the principles of their students' faith, particularly Christian principles. This is consummate disrespect. Those beliefs are invaluable to the people who hold them. That's why I want my students to recognize the connection between my faith and my work. I want them to know that they don't have to lay their beliefs aside although the environment may suggest otherwise. I feel that I'm exactly where God wants me to be.'" So at least we -- looks like we can tell this was done after you moved to UT at some point? A. Yes. (Page 209) Q. All right. Other than that, you can't specify the time frame? A. It just sounds like it's closer to 2002 than recent. Q. Okay. Just based on the -- on the statements you made, you mean? A. The language use, yeah. Q. Okay. So nowadays do you still see a connection between your faith and your work? A. It shapes what I'm interested in for sure. It's always -Q. Uh-huh. A. -- as I said just a minute ago, it -- it shaped my interest in religion, it shaped my interest in sexual decision-making, family, relationship formation. Q. And -- and did your faith, in part, at all shape your interest in doing the NFSS study? A. It was not a -- I was -- it's -- it's an extension because it's on the subject of sexual relationships of parents and relationship formation and cessation, so it's within the same orbit of things that I was interested in already. Q. Okay. Do you know what the Austin Institute is?

A. I do. Q. Can you -- can you tell me what it -- what its mission is? (Page 210) A. I don't know if it has a stated mission on the website. It's -- pragmatically, in my mind, it exists to encourage and disseminate social science data on family, sexual behavior, marriage, et cetera. Q. And are you a senior fellow at the Austin Institute? A. I am. Q. Dr. Price is also a fellow there? A. Yes. Q. And Catherine Pakaluk who's coauthor of the study, she's a fellow there as well? A. I'm sorry? Q. Catherine Pak -- I don't if I say that -- Pakaluk, is that how you say that? A. Pakaluk. Q. Sorry? A. Pakaluk. Q. Okay, Pakaluk. Is she also a fellow at Austin? A. Yes. Q. When did you become a -- a fellow at the Austin Institute? A. I'm thinking the formal -- I don't know what you'd call that -- nonprofit status came about mid summer, later summer 2000 -Q. Of 2013? A. Correct. (Page 211) Q. And who -- who created the institute? A. Right. I worked together with Andrew Litschi and Luis Tellez and another board -- another person who is now a board member to sort of vision cast for underwriting a sort of research organization like this. Q. Who was the -- the last person? What's their name? A. His name is Eric Stumberg. Q. Stemberg? A. Stumberg. MS. STANYAR: Stumberg? BY MS. COOPER: Q. How do you spell that? A. S-T-U-M-B-E-R-G. Q. All right. So you and Andrew and -- I didn't catch his last name -- Richie? A. Litschi. Q. How do you spell that? A. L-I-T-S-C-H-I. Q. Litschi, okay. So you, Andrew Litschi, Luis Tellez and Eric Stumberg were the sort of founders? Is that fair to say? A. That's probably fair to say. There was another early board member who helped vision cast as well. Q. Who was that? (Page 212) A. His name is Kirk Schroeder. Q. And of those initial founders, who sort of prompted it; was that you or -- or one of the other members of the group? A. My recollection is that Eric always suggested that I get a -- an assistant somehow, and I think Luis was interested in creating an organization that would help me continue my research and to foster other

people's participation in research on social science of the family and culture, so it was -- it arose out of a series of conversations. Q. Is there any faith-based mission to this institute? A. There is not. Q. So it -- it's research based? A. Yes. Q. And has the institute put out any research yet? A. We've done some number crunching of the NFSS and I would say a couple other data sets. I'm blanking on which ones but, you know, we issued online research summaries. I think they're available on the website. We're working on a man -- you know, journal article submission, also from the NFSS. Q. What is the topic of that submission? A. Masturbation patterns among young adults. Q. And that's been submitted, you said, to a journal? (Page 213) A. Yes. Q. And what were the conclusions? Was there a hypothesis that was tested and conclusions, anything like that? A. It was largely just a -- since it's not a commonly asked question, we intended to shed light on a -population-based estimates of masturbation frequency and the sociodemographic correlates of that. Q. And, of course, I have to ask. What were the -- the most significant correlates? A. Being male. There are others too. Greater anxiety. Let's see. Pornography use, predictably. I don't recall any racial or ethnic distinctions. There are age -- some age graded to some extent, not profoundly so. Yeah. Those are the key punch lines, but largely served the purpose of updating information about it because it's not a commonly asked question on surveys, and comparing it to the results of the 1994 NHLHS, otherwise known as the Chicago Sex Survey. Q. Okay. Now, these folks who were part of this founding group of Austin, so we know who Luis Tellez is from Witherspoon, but I -- I don't think you've mentioned -- are any of the others, Andrew Litschi. Eric Stumberg or Kirk Schroeder involved with any organizations that you know of? A. By what do you mean "organizations"? (Page 214) Q. Advocacy organizations or think tanks that relate to issues regarding marriage for same-sex couples? A. No, not that I'm aware of. Q. Uh-huh. Are they involved with any think tanks that you know? A. Not think tanks. Q. Or political advocacy groups? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. Foundations? A. Let's back up a second. Who are we talking about? Q. Andrew Litschi or Litschi, Eric Stumberg and Kirk Schroeder. A. Yeah, okay. I thought so. I -- I thought that's what you were talking about. Q. Uh-huh. How did you know these folks, or how did you come to know them? A. Andrew was introduced to me by a former student who had come across him working in Washington, DC. Kirk Schroeder, I think my wife and his wife knew each other. And Eric has been somebody I've known for several years. MS. COOPER: Okay. Carole, if you could take out document 36. For identification, it's a series of emails, the first with the re: line, "HelenAlvare put me in touch." (Page 215) MS. STANYAR: Yup, have that. MS. COOPER: And let's mark that as Exhibit 17. MARKED BY THE REPORTER:

DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 17 2:54 p.m. MS. COOPER: Let me know when you've got that marked. THE WITNESS: I have it. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Great. So if you could look through, do you recognize any of these e-mails? A. Vaguely. Q. Is it correspondence with Greg Pfundstein, P-F-U-N-D-S-T-E-I-N, is it? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And how do you know Greg Pfundstein? A. I think Helen Alvare put me in touch with him. He runs the Chiaroscuro -- or he's like the president or something of Chiaroscuro Foundation. Q. Uh-huh. Do you know the mission or purpose of this Chiaroscuro Foundation? A. Not so well as I like that I could recite it back to you. Q. Okay. And what do you know about it? (Page 216) A. I think they're like a pro-life group or something, but I'm not entirely sure. Q. Do you know if they have a position or advocate in any way regarding same-sex marriage? A. I suspect they're not in favor of it. I don't know that they advocate on it offhand. Q. Okay. In the first e-mail, first page, it says: "Hi Greg, "I read the manuscript, and it's fine scholarship. Here are a few thoughts about it and the proposed project you mentioned." Is this manuscript you're talking about the Allen, Price and Pakaluk study, analyzing the US Census data? A. I'm betting so from the -- the context below it, although it's not an e-mail I -- that is fresh in my mind, but it -- it would seem to suggest so. Q. And I -- let's look at the second paragraph. It says, "The article is unique in social science" -- let me back up. This may help refresh your recollection too. And if you'll read along with me: "The article is unique in social science, in that it actually re-runs the statistical models and finds reasons to dispute the original author's conclusions. I think they have good reason to do (Page 217) it, although knowing Michael Rosenfeld just a bit, I think Catherine and Joe did well to avoid making it 'personal.' There are decent reasons for the sample restrictions Michael put on his study -- namely, he (and many) try to compare 'apples to apples' as best as they can. So he restricted the sample in various ways to get as parallel a sample (to married couples) as he could." Hold on a second. Well, one question about this passage I had is I wasn't sure what you meant by knowing Michael Rosenfeld a bit, Catherine and Joe did well to avoid making it personal. Do you know what you meant by that? A. I presume it meant that before he turned down my offer to have him consult, we had a brief e-mail exchange on sample size and knowledge networks, and -- and it was pleasant, and I assume that's -- and I -- I harbored no animosity toward the fellow, so it just meant that I think Catherine and Joe were not trying to be antagonistic. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. If you go to the fourth paragraph, it says: "I don't know exactly what splash this particular (Page 218) piece can make, when it's published. Hopefully they send it to Demography, where the original was published. The damage is done, so to speak, but Catherine and Joe seem correct in their assertions that the Rosenfeld piece was used inappropriately as a tool in the California litigation. (But I don't think Rosenfeld is malicious in intent, etc.)" What do you mean by "the damage is done"? A. Just means -- the study's already been published, so this was prior to -- they submitted to Demography and eventually it did get accepted there, but once a study is in, you know, then it's already in even though you dispute it. Once upon a time I submitted a -- or the Austin Statesman wrote something about something I had said, and I thought they had misquoted me, and so it's like, well, you

know, the damage is already done. It's already in print. So it just means that the thing is already in print. Q. Gotcha. Let's look at document 9-B and mark that as Exhibit 18, and for reference and identification, it's called "A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada" by Mark Regnerus. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 18 (Page 219) 3:00 p.m. MS. STANYAR: So we are at what now? COURT REPORTER: Eighteen. MS. COOPER: It's 18 now. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. A. Yes. Q. Do you have that in front of you? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Is this an article you wrote? A. I did. Q. And it's dated October 8th, 2013? A. Yes. Q. And it was published online in the Public Discourse. Can you tell me about that venue? A. That's an online -- I don't know if you want to call it journal, just online source of essays that is housed at the Witherspoon Institute. Q. Okay. It's an online of essays -- I didn't hear you. A. Online source of essays, I think they run roughly one a day, and I think it's housed at the Witherspoon Institute. Q. Okay. And -- and in this piece you're talking about the -- the study that Allen did from the Canadian Census data; is that right? (Page 220) A. Correct. Q. I just want to go to the second page towards the bottom, third paragraph from the bottom, and if you read along with me: "Every study has its limitations, and this one does too. It is unable to track the household history of children. Nor is it able to establish the circumstances of the birth of the children whose education is evaluated -- that is, were they the product of a heterosexual union, adopted, or born via surrogate or assisted reproductive technology? Finally, the census did not distinguish between married and common law gay and lesbian couples. But couples they are." Focusing on the limitation about not being able to establish the circumstances of the birth, i.e., product of a heterosexual union, adoption or born via surrogate or assisted reproductive technology, why was that a limitation in your view? A. Why was the -- that a lim -- as I mentioned before, the science around this stuff is fairly new and the - you know, what we would all like to see, I suspect, is a longitudinal study that's very large, has -tracks kids from birth if not before to into their young-adult years, and is large enough to randomly (Page 221) track kids who were -- you know, with respect to same-sex families, kids who were a product of ART, people who were adopted, surrogate, et cetera, so, you know, nothing out there is -- has been able to do that yet.Q. Did you have -- have a chance to review the Allen study before it was published?A. I saw an earlier draft at some point. I skimmed it. I probably didn't read it. And then I largely forgot about it, and then -- then I heard that it was published. Q. Do you know who sent it to you? A. I don't.

Q. Okay. In the Allen study of the Canadian Census data, are you able -- you're familiar with the -- the study that was ultimately published; is that right? A. Yes. It's been a few months since I read it but -Q. Is that what you commented on in this article? A. Say that again. Q. Is that -- it was the published version of the study that you were commenting on in this Public Discourse article? A. Yes, in review of economics of the household. Q. I'm sorry. A. Yes, the one that appeared in economics of the (Page 222) household. Q. Right, right. Okay. Are you able to tell from that study whether -- let me back up. You -- you -- you comment that they don't establish the circumstances of the birth of the children? A. Uh-huh, right. Q. Is there any way to know, looking at that data, whether individuals are from a -- a -- a prior heterosexual relationship, or we just can't tell? A. I'm not sure I could answer that question. I presume you cannot tell. Q. That -- and in that study they were looking at 17 to 22 years old; is that right? A. Right, right. Q. So is it -- is it likely that many of those subjects, given the time period in which they were born, that they were the product of a former heterosexual union? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It calls for speculation. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. A. I'm going to bet so, but I -- I frankly don't know. Q. Do you think that this study by Allen provides data that allows you to draw conclusions about the impact of being raised in a planned, same-sex-parent family? (Page 223) A. If you mean by "planned", ART at birth to a couple, I suspect that is not in the -- that's not what they evaluated on average, but I don't believe they have the ability to confirm that or disconfirm that. Q. Right. I didn't realize -- I just have one more question about the communications with Greg Pfundstein of the Chiaroscuro Foundation. Did they -- in those e-mails, did I understand correctly that they asked you -- or I should say Greg Pfundstein of Chiaroscuro asked you to review the manuscript by Allen Price and Pakaluk about the US Census data before publishing it? A. My memory is stretched here. It -- it looks like I read that article. Yeah, it would probably have been a draft of that article, yeah. Q. Uh-huh. And they just wanted your input on whether it was good or -- or what? A. I think Greg asked for my opinion on what I thought of the article. Q. So switching gears from these particular studies looking at same-sex couples and children, I just want to step back and -- and learn a little bit about the work you do on a day-to-day basis. What -- what are your main areas of research and publication as a sociologist? A. At present, sexual behavior, decision-making, and (Page 224) relationship formation and conduct. Q. And does that focus on heterosexuals? A. Generally speaking, it has been because I've dealt with population-based research and the samples were largely relatively small or -- and I -- in the last two books that I wrote, the only two books that I've written, I include a section where we looked at the same-sex sexual attraction behavior and self-identity of both adolescents -- I think it was 13- to 18-year-olds -- and young adults in the two different books, but I concluded, I believe, in each of those saying that, you know, I'm not going to focus on them in this

particular manuscript. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And at UT, what types of classes do you teach in? A. Reliably a teacher of an introductory to sociology class, and then I'll teach an occasional -- the other classes -- I mean, we're responsible for two per semester. We can buy them out on one or both, perhaps, with external funding or an internal grant. So I have the stable intro class and then I've taught a variety of different classes. Q. Uh-huh. Have you taught any classes about parenting or child development? A. Not particularly focused on that. (Page 225) Q. Have you done any research or published any articles or books, you know, apart from the NFSS, relating to the parenting or child development? A. There are different articles, if you want to go back to my CV. Which one was that? MS. HEYSE: It would be attached to Number 1. THE WITNESS: Attached to Number 1? MS. HEYSE: Uh-huh. THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. So, for example, Stokes and Regnerus, 2009, on page 19 of the CV. BY MS. COOPER: Q. On which page, sir? A. Page 19. It's probably of the -- page 19 of the Exhibit 1. Q. Uh-huh. Oh, Stokes and Regnerus 2009. Uh-huh. A. Subtitle is "Religious Discord and Adolescent Reports of Parent-Child Relations." I was a coauthor on the next one below that, "Attitudes Toward Parenting." In 2006, page 20, next to the bottom, I published an article with a coauthor on "Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics." And below that, "Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities for Adolescents' First Sex." Page 21, the second entry is on "Talking About Sex: Religion and Patterns of (Page 226) Parent-Child Communication about Sex and Contraception." And then, of course, the review of religious research, basically a lit review on positive adolescent outcomes that you had submitted as an exhibit. Q. Which one is that? A. Which exhibit is it? Q. No. Sorry. Which -- which -- which article are you referring to? A. The middle of page 21, "Religion and Positive Adolescent Outcomes," although I don't know -necessarily know that it got into parent-child dynamics on that one. Q. Sorry. I'm having trouble national that one. Is that toward the top or bottom -A. Middle of 21. Q. Oh, found it. Found it. Got it. Sorry. A. Those would be the articles -Q. Okay. Anything else? A. I'm not sure about that one, necessarily, but the ones before that are the ones that concern parent-child relationships. Q. Okay. And -- and what about -- any of these or any other articles you've written for books focus on child development? (Page 227) A. Not child development, typically adolescent development or adolescent outcomes. Q. I see, the adolescent outcomes. Gotcha. Okay. A. When I was a grad student, I started working on the data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and that -- that generated several studies. Q. I just want to show -- mark as exhibits a couple of -- it looks like a long portion of their same-sex -we can talk about briefly. Carole, can you take out document 11, "Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex

Marriage," and mark that as Exhibit 19? MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 19 16 3:14 p.m. MS. COOPER: Okay. Let me know when you're ready for the next one. THE WITNESS: Got it. MS. HEYSE: All set, Leslie. MS. COOPER: Okay. Carole, if you could take out document 12 called, "Yes, Marriage Will Change -and Here's How," and have that marked as Exhibit 20. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: (Page 228) DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 20 3:15 p.m. MS. HEYSE: Are we still waiting, Leslie? MS. COOPER: Oh, I was waiting for you. Are you ready for another one? MS. HEYSE: Oh, sorry. MS. COOPER: Okay. Okay. Carole, the document 13-B, "The New Birds and the Bees," if we could mark that as Exhibit 21. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 21 3:16 p.m. MS. HEYSE: Do you have more? MS. COOPER: I do. MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: Are you ready for the next one? MS. HEYSE: Yup. MS. STANYAR: Yes. MS. COOPER: Carole, document 13 -- actually, "Freedom to Marry Young," got that? MS. STANYAR: Yes. MS. COOPER: Okay. Let's mark that as Exhibit 22. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 22 (Page 229) 3:16 p.m. MS. STANYAR: Got it. MS. COOPER: Then document 14, "Unplanned Pregnancies: The Subtle Assault on Half of Us," if that could be marked as Exhibit 23. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 23 3:17 p.m. MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: And then I think this is the last one, number 14-B, if we can mark as Exhibit 23 a document called "'Right Side of History,' or Primed to Say Yes." MS. HEYSE: Is this 24? COURT REPORTER: Twenty-four. MS. STANYAR: Twenty-four. MS. COOPER: Oh, did I -MS. HEYSE: Yes. MS. COOPER: Twenty-four? MS. STANYAR: Yes. "Unplanned Pregnancies" was 23. This is 24. MS. COOPER: Oh, yup. Okay. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 24 3:17 p.m. (Page 230) MS. HEYSE: Okay. Leslie, we have -- I've just been signaled we have five minutes left, so I don't know

if you want to launch into anything here or if we want to just switch out or -MS. COOPER: Well, we can do one quick thing and then take our -- our break. MS. HEYSE: Okay. MS. COOPER: Do we have them all marked? MS. HEYSE: Yes. MS. STANYAR: Yes. MS. HEYSE: We're ready. You proceed with your quick thing. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Dr. Regnerus, do you have all of those in front of you now, Exhibits 19 through 24? A. I do. Q. And going through one by one, the first one, Exhibit 19, "Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage," is that an article you wrote and published on Public Discourse, December 20, 2012? A. It is. Q. Okay. And going to the next one, Exhibit 20, "Yes, Marriage Will Change -- and Here's How," is that an article you wrote and published on Public Discourse June 7th, 2013? (Page 231) A. Yes. Q. Okay. Then going to Exhibit 21, "The New Birds and the Bees," is that an article you wrote and published in Public Discourse May 23, 2013? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then Exhibit 22, "Freedom to Marry Young," is that a -- a piece you wrote for the Washington Post April 26, 2009? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then Exhibit 23, "Unplanned Pregnancies: The Subtle Assault on Half of Us," is that something you wrote about on a -- a blog? A. Yes. Q. And that's dated October 8, 2012? A. Yup. Yes. Q. And that blog is hosted by patheos.com? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And then, finally, Exhibit Number 24, is that an article you wrote called "'Right Side of History,' or Primed to Say Yes?" dated August 20th, 2013 in the National Review online? A. Yes. MS. COOPER: Okay. That is a good breaking point. MS. HEYSE: Okay. (Page 232) MS. STANYAR: Okay. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 3:19 p.m. We are off the record for a media change. (Recess was taken at 3:19 p.m.) (Back on the record at 3:27 p.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 3:27 p.m. We are back on the record. Please continue. MS. COOPER: Thank you. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So turning back to Exhibit 19, the article called "Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage" dated December 20, 2012, if you'll read with me the first paragraph there under the dates: "Young adult men's support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and fairness. It may be, in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts." You wrote that? A. I did.

Q. And that was your conclusion from your research from your family instruction study? A. This was a short piece I wrote based on data analyses of the NFSS, and I had came to the conclusion that (Page 233) well, we can talk about that later but, yeah, I wrote this. Q. Well, that's -- that's actually what I wanted to ask you about, the conclusion. I'm not sure what you were wanting to talk about later. MS. HEYSE: Well, you can pose a question, Counselor. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Yeah. I did. But this was the conclusion that you got from analyzing data from NFSS; is that right? A. The primary conclusion is that as men's self-reported pornography use increases, so does their support for -- that it should be -- support for the statement, "It should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry in America." Q. How is it you decided to look at that question? A. I frankly don't recall how it germinated in my mind. Typically, when you create -- or when you -- our principles of the data project, you're interested in the data for lots of reasons, and I've run lots of numbers looking at simple associations, regression models of different outcomes, and apparently some time before December 20th of 2012 I was interested in -- became interested in the association between porn use and respondent's support for same-sex marriage. (Page 234) Q. If we could look at Exhibit 20, "Yes, Marriage Will Change - and Here's How," June 2013, okay? A. Yes. Q. I want you to follow along with me from the top: "The sexual permissiveness of men will emerge a winner in the contest of ideas as same-sex marital norms begin to shape the larger institution of marriage. "Will same-sex marriage cause harm to opposite-sex marriage? It's one of the most enduring questions surrounding state and national legal decisions about marriage. "But the question itself is empirically unanswerable any time soon. We are arguably years away from gathering quality longitudinal, nationally representative data on the matter. And even then, assessing - let alone agreeing upon - causation will remain difficult. Same-sex marriage may, after all, be a later-stage symptom of the general deinstitutionalization of marriage rather than, as many assert, a cause of it. So the question remains less an empirical one than a theoretical one at present. And they go on to say: "And yet we can built plausible hypotheses about (Page 235) the broader influence of same-sex marriage by looking around the neighborhood - that is, at what we already know about gay and straight relationships, about what's happening to marriage, the mating market, and how institutions change." Stopping there, just to -do I understand correctly that these are -- in this article you go on to address hypotheses about how same-sex marriage can affect heterosexual marriage but there's no actual evidence yet to allow for such conclusions? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Then if you'll turn with me to -- sorry. The -- let's see. The fifth page, 5 of 6, okay? The second paragraph, if you'll read with me: "A key here lies, strangely enough, in the legitimacy that straight women already accord gay men's unions. (Women support same-sex marriage at levels well eclipsing that of men). Why does this matter? If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere (and not a few husbands) to press for what men have always wanted but few were allowed: Sexual novelty, in the form of permission to stray (Page 236) without jeopardizing their primary relationship." You wrote that? A. I did. Q. So I want to see if -- I just have a question about this, or two. Is the idea that -- that straight people are going to -- your view is that straight men are going to think that they can stray if same-sex marriage is deemed or perceived to be legitimate by heterosexual women?

A. Not quite. This hypothesis, and that's what it is, concerns research and writing I've done on sexual markets and relation -- the marriage market, et cetera. The claim I'm making here is that as -- something I mentioned in the report, that it's -- there's social scientific evidence that men in gay relationships are more likely to have sexual relationships outside that primary relationship than either two women or a man and a woman, so the logic I'm making here, and it was a hypothesis, is that insofar as -- insofar as heterosexual women accord gay marriage in terms of men's unions as legitimate, and insofar as men's unions are less likely to be -- emphasize sexual fidelity between the two couple, it puts heterosexual women in a little bit of a bind with respect to the role of sexual fidelity in their own (Page 237) marriage. Basically, they're affirming that sexual fidelity is not necessarily a central expectation of marriage for men, and I hypothesize that they may be in a bind when it comes to their own opposite sex relationships with men. Q. Okay. In Exhibit 22, "Freedom to Marry Young" in the Washington Post, in this piece, if I understand correctly, you're making the case for people to consider marrying in their earlier 20s rather than waiting till the later 20s; is that right? A. Basically. I mean, just to -- the average age has risen to 27 and 29 now, and it grew out of a -looking at the research on this stuff, when is the major risk for divorce over, and I had already said earlier that it's by 20 or 22 for men, and having conversations with students at UT who said they felt like they were undercover if they were looking for a -- somebody to marry shortly after they're in college, so -- so I just got creative and decided to write an article about it. Q. Is one of the reasons that you have advocated for considering early marriage is that marrying late makes it harder to hold off on having sex until marriage? A. That is generally not why I have written these things. It is an assumption of mine that the longer people (Page 238) wait, the less anybody would expect them to refrain from sexual relationships, so it's not a cause of my writing. It's just -- it just so happens that that's -- I do expect that to be an uncommon occurrence. Q. Do you -- putting aside any religious beliefs about premarital sex, do you, as a sociologist, think it's harmful for adults to have premarital sex or sex before marriage? A. I think it would depend on how you define harm. I wrote an entire book on the sexual relationship behavior of largely unmarried 18- to 23-year-olds, and documented a variety of different associations and stories in that book about relationships behavior. Q. So it is not your view that having sex without being married, per se, is harmful to individuals? A. I -- I would still go back to sort of, is this an empirical question, and if so, then we have to evaluate what you mean by harm. Q. Any negative consequences to well-being that you know of? A. I documented some in my second book. Q. And what -- what are those? A. This was more sort of a -- the number of partners you have prior to -- more -- the more numerous partners -- (Page 239) premarital partners, the more likely women are to express emotional -- diminished emotional well-being. It's from Chapter 5, I believe, of Premarital Sex in America. Q. So that -- that has to do with the number of partners; if it's -- if it's a lot of partners, it's a correlation with lack of well-being? A. Most of that study that's reflected in that book had to do with people who were not married. I mean, there was briefly, in Chapter 6, about marriage in the minds of young adults. I compared -- or I talked about married young adults, but most of that was about unmarried adults -- young adults. Q. But you also have religious beliefs about premarital sex; is that right? A. In consonance with my earlier statement, you know, insofar as the Church suggests that sex outside

of marriage is wrong, I affirm their teaching on the matter. It doesn't shape my interest in studying the matter and documenting associations that exist or failing to find ones that don't exist. Q. In your -- in your presentation at Cedarville College you spoke from a religious perspective about the impropriety of premarital sex; is that right? A. You'd have to tell me what I said because I don't (Page 240) recall offhand. Q. Well, you don't recall, you don't recall. I'm afraid I can't offer you a transcript. Let's see. If we can look at Exhibit 23, "Unplanned Pregnancies: The Subtle Assault on Half of Us." MS. HEYSE: Before you go too far, Leslie, off the record we have noted that there is a comment that's attached to this. Is that being removed? MS. STANYAR: Yes, and that should be removed from Number 23 -MS. COOPER: Yeah, that's fine. MS. STANYAR: -- the third page. THE WITNESS: You want me to remove it or do you -MS. STANYAR: Yeah, if you can just take off the last page. MS. HEYSE: Yeah. It's the third page to be removed, Dr. -MS. STANYAR: It was a printout of an internet and then there's a blog I -MS. HEYSE: Thank you. Thank you. Great. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So on the second page, then, I'm -- my printout may look a little different than yours, but the paragraph (Page 241) beginning: "This shift in discourse of late away from reducing teen pregnancies" -have you found that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. If you'll read along with me: "This shift in discourse of late away from reducing teen pregnancies - a fairly intelligent, no-brainer goal - to reducing unplanned pregnancies continues to grate upon me years after The National Campaign added it." And by "The National Campaign," you're referring to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And is it your view -- I -- I think I understand correctly from this, but if I'm summarizing wrong, tell me -- that while you think teen pregnancy is a social problem, unplanned pregnancy among married couples is not; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. This is outside the scope of Dr. Regnerus' report. THE WITNESS: I -- I think that's an accurate characterization. (Page 242) BY MS. COOPER: Q. And is it your view that unplanned pregnancies should be part of the sexual union between husbands and wives? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance. THE WITNESS: I'm not saying that. I just -- I'm stating that I've detected that unplanned pregnancies are widely problemitized in Public Discourse, especially academic discourse, and I don't think they're inherently problematic. What happens more is the context around those unplanned pregnancies. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And if you look at the paragraph beginning, "Two of my three children" -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- a little farther down on the page, okay? A. Yes. Q. Yeah. "Two of my three children were altogether unintended and unplanned, and frankly genuine surprises. Perhaps we exhibited a 'lack of planning and control.' (Isn't that what the sexual union

between husband and wife ought to exhibit with some regularity?)" (Page 243) Is that a view that -- that you -- you think that's something that's supposed to happen in -- in marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, relevance, and the document speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: I think sexual unions in marriage often exhibit a spontaneous aspect to them and I think there's nothing wrong with that. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. And then, finally, if we go to Exhibit 24, "'Right Side of History,' or Primed to Say Yes," I understand to be an analysis of polling data on support of same-sex marriage where you were questioning the polling results showing a majority support; is that correct? A. It was -- I believe it was not my own analyses. I was highlighting a study that was conducted by Rice University sociologists, and then I looked into what other surveys had shown over the last, you know, several years about -- and how people ask the question and whether that seemed to matter. Q. Uh-huh. What prompted your interest in this? A. I saw a copy of that Rice University study and I found it interesting, and it made me wonder what did other surveys have to say about it, so then we looked, (Page 244) looking at Gallup, CNN, et cetera, and the fluctuation of survey results and the Rice paper's national that was unique in some ways. There's also longitudinal which is un -- uncommon too. It just prompted me to think this is an interesting paper to write a -- a short article about. Q. Prior to writing this article, have you ever done any work relating to polling? A. Not that I recall. I have -Q. On -A. I'm sorry. Q. I -- I should clarify, public opinion polling? A. Right. Not per se, although I have written one or two published articles that concerned social desirability bias in person's survey responses. Q. Okay. Switching gears, have you reviewed any of the other expert reports submitted by the Defendants' experts in this case? A. I have. Q. Which ones? A. I believe I read Rosenfeld's and Gates. I'm not sure I read anybody else. Q. I'm sorry. Let me clarify it. Defense -- the defense experts -A. Oh. (Page 245) Q. -- have you read any of those? A. No. Q. So you haven't read the reports by Price or Allen? A. No. Q. Okay. I actually wanted to just ask you one question about -- I want to show you Joseph Price's report. Carole, that's document 2, if we could mark that as Exhibit 25. MARKED BY THE REPORTER: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER 25 3:48 p.m. MS. HEYSE: If we could give him a few minutes to look through this, Leslie, since he's not seen it before. MS. COOPER: Okay. You know, while he's doing that, I'm going to step -- step out just a moment to make sure we can hold this room. MS. HEYSE: Well, is there something in particular that he should be directing his attention to, because it's quite a lengthy report.

MS. COOPER: Sure. It -- I would suggest -- I'm going to be asking about paragraph 8 so -MS. HEYSE: Okay, thank you. MS. COOPER: Okay. I'm going to step away for --(Page 246) I'm back in whenever you're ready. MS. STANYAR: Okay, we're ready. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. In paragraph 8 of the Joseph Price expert report, he writes: "Based on my own research and my evaluation of published research in this field, I conclude that children raised by same-sex couples have noticeably worse outcomes than children raised by both a father and a mother. This evaluation is based on my own published study on the topic and the supporting evidence of other recent studies using large nationally representative datasets." And we can just stop there for the moment. Do you agree with Price that there is enough scientific evidence on which such a conclusion can be drawn today? A. Generally, I -- I understand what he's saying and I don't disagree. Q. So you do agree -A. Correct. Q. -- that there's sufficient evidence upon which such a conclusion can be drawn? A. One of the conclusions I made in my study is that the science here is too new and that there is ample (Page 247) evidence in the population-based probability studies of -- in this domain to suggest that the consensus about no differences may be premature, if not incorrect. Q. Right. And I -- I understand that to be a very different conclusion than the conclusion that children raised by same-sex couples have noticeably worse outcomes. Do -- do you -A. I presume what -- I mean -Q. Go ahead. A. When I -- when I think about same-sex couples in the NFSS, I think of notable instability and, you know, the 31 kids whose mother and her partners were in the household for a portion or up to one year; the 20 kids who -- 20 respondents who said their mother and a partner were together for four -- and they are a same-sex couple -- for portions of up to two years the smaller numbers of three to four years; and the total of I think 19 cases that stayed together over five years. These are all same-sex couples, the majority of which were not very long in their duration. Q. Really? You -- you think you can -- you can conclude that, that they're not long in their duration -A. Well, in terms of their -- (Page 248) Q. -- because they don't -A. In terms of their household presence in the respondents' lives, yeah, the mothers and her partner were not together in the household with the respondent for very long, on average. Q. But -- but that doesn't speak to the stability of that couple's relationship once it's formed. It may be -it may go on until one of them dies, right? A. Insofar as if it, you know, formed later in adolescence and we don't know about it, perhaps, or if it was nonresidential after being residential when they were younger, perhaps, although I suspect that's uncommon to have a residential relationship and then it becomes nonresidential. I'm saying most of those same-sex couples in the NFSS were brief in their household presence. Q. Are you able to tell from your data whether the same-sex-couple relationship ended? MS. HEYSE: He wasn't finished answering the question. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'm sorry. I heard silence. But go ahead. We're -- we're all struggling to do this on the telephone. We're doing the best we can. A. Right. What I know is whether the couple lived (Page 249) together in the household with the respondent, according to the respondent. Now, if the respondent says my mother and her part -- my

mother and partner were -- they were -- you know, X'ed the box at age three, four, five, and then stopped, and we didn't see an X in the box for the mother's partner after that point in time, my assumption is that the -- the partner is no longer in the household. It's possible that the relationship continued, but it's -- I would guess it's unlikely to have been in a partnered residential romantic relationship and then not. Q. Help me understand that. Are you -- then of the -- I think you said 85 kids who had lived at some point with mom and a same-sex partner? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Of those 85, do you know what percentage of them or how many had a mom's same-sex partner, you know, leave the house before or -- or -- before the study period was over? A. I'm not following the -- the question. Q. Yeah. Let -- let me try it differently. You -- you mentioned that such a small percentage of the children in that group of 85 were living many years with mom and a same-sex partner, but isn't it correct that a significant portion of that is because the partner (Page 250) came in, you know, when they were an adolescent or when they were 12, whatever it may be -A. Sure. Q. -- not that mom and her partner broke up? A. Well, if you take out Exhibit 6, page 5, Figure 1 -Q. Yeah. A. If you look at Figure 1, this is a frequency of four living arrangements of young adults who reported maternal same-sex romantic relationship behavior by their age and years. This is -- you know, I talked a little bit about this before where you see the modal response is they were born or at age 1 they're with their biological mother and father, but a good share of them were with their biological mother only, and a very small share, of course, were with their biological mother and her partner. That increases slightly as they age, but you can still see that in terms of the percentage of arrangement, we've got maybe 10 to 15 percent at any given age during the teenage years peaking perhaps around age 14, although the bar you see there doesn't mean that those couples stayed together. It just means that was -- at that age, age 14 in particular, it looks like the -- I think it's 14, the most respondents said they were living with their mother and the same-sex partner. (Page 251) This was never a -- a common household arrangement in the NFSS even though it could have been, according to how we structured the survey. Q. Are you able to identify from your data, of the 85 who lived with mom and same-sex partner for some amount of time, what percentage of those 85 -- in those 85 families the mother and her partner broke up? A. I can just tell you when they left the household or if -Q. Okay. That's -A. -- they left the household or turned age 18. MS. STANYAR: Let him finish that last part -BY MS. COOPER: Q. Yeah. Well -- Let him finish that last of the answer because I don't know if you heard that, that they left the house -MS. COOPER: I -- I probably didn't. THE WITNESS: I can't tell you the percentage but the data is enabled to tell when the partner exited -or when the respondent is saying there is no more same -- mother's same-sex partner in this household. MS. COOPER: Uh-huh. (Page 252) MS. STANYAR: And then I just -- I heard the rest of it was or the person turned 18. THE WITNESS: Yeah. And we -- then we stopped asking them, in particular, about their growing up

years at age 18. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Sorry. I'm having a hard time understanding this. So there isn't a way to determine of the 85 how many of them had, before they turned 18, the mother and a partner broke up, or I -- I should say left the household -- one of them left the household? A. At which age are we speaking of? Q. At any age. I understand there were 85 in total who lived at some point -A. Right, right. Q. -- with mom and a same-sex partner. A. Thirty of those said the mother's partner was in the household for up to -- four months up to a year, and that was it. Q. Okay. How is that -A. Twenty-one of those cases they -MS. STANYAR: Wait, wait. Just hold on a second. MS. HEYSE: Carole, you need to not be involved in this because you're not participating in (Page 253) speaking. MS. STANYAR: Okay. But they're overlapping. MS. HEYSE: I understand, but we can communicate that to Leslie without you communicating to Dr. Regnerus. Thank you. Go ahead, Leslie. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Yeah. So that was -- this is helpful to break it down like this. So you have 30 said that the mother's partner was living with them for this particular window of time. Do we know, of those 30, whether the reason it was a short time is because the kid is 18 so we're at the end of the period, or -- or mom left -- or mom's partner left? A. That's discernible. I don't report it. I mean, I didn't evaluate it. It -- as this figure indicates, it is more common that the relationship that was residential between mother and her partner occurred during adolescence, but I did not report in this and I couldn't tell you today how many, for example, were ongoing at age 18 when they left the household. That is an answerable question. I just couldn't answer it for you today. Q. Understood. No, this is -- this is very helpful (Page 254) because this was -- this was confusing to me. So then we don't know, is -- is it possible of the 85 who had a mom living with a same-sex partner for some amount of time, in theory -- I'm guessing not likely but, theoretically, it's possible that none of those same-sex-couple relationships broke up but that the short period of time was because they were in adolescence and they turned 18 so -A. No -Q. -- they stopped counting? A. I mean, I have eyeballed that data at one point in time. I didn't tally it but I can tell you that it's spread across the respondents' childhood and adolescence, so there are plenty of cases where that relationship occurred prior to adolescence. Q. I see. Is there any way to -- or do you know just from -- let's say it may be ascertainable, but do you actually know whether the breakup rate of the same-sex female couple in this sample is higher than the breakup rate, in general, of heterosexual married couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection. I believe that question was asked and answered earlier, but go ahead. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Go ahead. (Page 255) A. What do you mean by "breakup rate"?

Q. All right, yeah. "Breakup" isn't the right word because it measures mother's partner leaving the home, right, hence, it's a breakup? Okay. So then if -- if we're comparing mother's partner leaving home and -let me back up. I -- I -- I -- if -- I can probably ask this a little bit more simply. Looking at the subjects who had a mom who reported a same-sex relationship and they lived with that mom and her partner for some period of time, can you tell from the data, do you know, whether the stability of those existing same-sex couples, how that would compare, in general, to the stability of heterosexual couples given that we don't know whether they broke up or the child just hit 18? A. It's conceivably answerable. I don't know it offhand. I mean, the -- the analyses I did in the follow-up where I divided it up into 15 different groups, I mean, I detail scenarios where parents were married. For one respondent, they got a divorce, respondent lived with their mother, and respondent reported no subsequent relationship before they turned 18 or left the household. So in that case you can kind of say, oh, this is -- this is a respondent for whom the only -- on the calendar, the only relationship they (Page 256) talked about was their parent's marriage until it ended and there was no subsequent relationship, so you can sort of say that -- you know, the number of those is X; in this case, 108 cases. I think your -Q. All right. But if you wanted to have the full universe of the heterosexual comparison group, you would have both -- not just the intact biological families, you'd have the divorced ones, too, right? A. Sure. You could pool them together if you wished. Q. Uh-huh. A. That remains distinctive from the intact biological families. Q. But -- to -- right, and you wouldn't be able to compare stability of same-sex couples and different-sex couples by only comparing to the subset of heterosexuals that are intact biological families, right? A. I understand. Q. What's that? A. Yes, I understand. Q. Is -- is that correct? A. Could you repeat it then? I mean -Q. Yeah. Is -- is it correct that you would not be able to compare the stability of the same-sex-couple group to the stability of heterosexual relationships by (Page 257) comparing the same-sex-couple group only to the subset of all the heterosexuals who are in the intact biological parent family? A. Right. I mean, you can do both kinds of comparisons but we already know that in the one case the respondents said they live with their mom and dad who were married and they -- they stayed in the household from zero to 18, so no transitions. But you can document comings and goings among people who did have transitions. I did not do that in this analysis. Q. And can you remind me? I think I came across it but I -- I -- I just don't remember. Among -- what percentage of -- of the kids were in divorced families -- heterosexual families? A. What do you mean by "divorced heterosexual families"? Q. One that -- here. Let me find your categories. All right. You had the intact biological family. You had lesbian mother, gay father, adopted, divorced later or had joint custody, stepfamily, single parent, and all others. If you combine -- well, actually, you have your numbers right here. I probably don't need to ask you. You had 116 divorce later or had joint custody, and 394 stepfamilies? MS. HEYSE: Is there a question posed? (Page 258) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Is that right? I'm just trying to get a sense of -- of the heterosexual group, what percentage are intact biological versus step, divorced, and single? A. Table 1 shows you a weighted summary statistics on this. Q. Okay. Do I -- I get it right that -- that approximately half of the heterosexual group families are intact

biological and the other half are other types of arrangements? A. According to this, it says 40 percent, or mean is .4, were intact biological family in the weighted summary statistics. Q. Okay. So your intact biological family group isn't representative of all the heterosexual parents? A. Is not representative? Q. Okay. A. I'm not sure what you're saying. Q. Never mind. I -- I think this helps answer my question. Thank you. Going back to what prompted this line of questioning, the Price report -A. Yes. Q. -- Exhibit 25, in paragraph 8, we kind of got off track but I'm trying to understand how to harmonize (Page 259) your conclusion that the conclusions are premature and there -- there -- there may be harm associated with being raised by same-sex parents, and you're agreeing with his paragraph 8 that the research allowed for the conclusion that children raised by same-sex couples have noticeably worse outcomes, but -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- it's not clear to me which is your view. The -A. I don't see those views as incompatible. The first one I'm -- I'm describing is the -- more data collections should be done in this area and a longitudinal study of a large sample -- I've talked about this before -- is -- really would be helpful and enlightening, especially with respect to kind of smaller pools of people, for example, same-sex couples who haves a child by assisted reproductive technology as opposed to ones who adopt. I mean, that's a small group of people when you search randomly for them in the United States, so I think we should explore that. Now, Joe was talking about same-sex couples, and -- and in the NFSS, our same-sex couples are -- displayed a fare amount of household instability, or the respondents for whom reported living with their mother and a partner reported household instability. That now is the average experience, so I don't see (Page 260) that the two are mutually exclusive. Q. Now, in his language he says, "I conclude that children raised by same-sex couples," not children who -A. Right. Q. -- at some point are in a household with a same-sex couple. He says children raised by same-sex couples have noticeably worse outcomes than children raised by both a mother and father. That, to me, does not imply children who, you know, like your study, may have had some moment in -- in time with - the way you describe your study more precisely, right, that children in a family who lived with a parent and a same-sex partner, right? He's saying children raised by same-sex couples. Do you agree that there is enough research to know children raised by same-sex couples -A. I'm not sure what Joe is -Q. -- have noticeably worse outcomes than children raised by both a mother and a father? A. I'm not sure what Joe's referring to by raised, and I didn't write his report, obviously. I have said in my report that I described the lives of children now 18 to 39 in the NFSS study and their experience of time spent in same-sex-couple households. I think it's premature and foolish of me to suggest that parents (Page 261) who are brief -- I mean, relationships that are brief in the child's life are not influential or that nonresidential parents don't help raise a child, so I wouldn't purport to put words in Joe's mouth. MS. COOPER: I think we're -- we're getting there. I think if we could take a few minutes and go off the record and I could just briefly consult with co-counsel, I may be able to wrap us up well under time. MS. HEYSE: Sounds good to me.

MS. COOPER: Yeah. So, Carole, can you -- you give me a shout? MS. STANYAR: Yeah, I will. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Okay. It's 4:11 p.m. We are off the record. (Recess was taken at 4:11 p.m.) (Back on the record at 4:18 p.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 8:14 p.m. We are back on the record. Please continue. MS. HEYSE: What? VIDEO TECHNICIAN: I'm sorry, dyslexic. 4:18 p.m. We are back on the record. Thank you. MS. HEYSE: Thank you. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: I apologize. (Page 262) MS. COOPER: Thank you. This will be very quick. We are back on the record just to say I have no further questions unless Ms. Heyse has any questions. MS. HEYSE: You know, why don't you give us a few minutes? I wish I would have known that was a possibility. MS. STANYAR: We didn't know that -- yeah. We didn't know that ourselves. MS. HEYSE: Why don't we take like two, three minutes and we'll -- we'll confer briefly. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: All right. It's 4:19. We are off the record. (Recess was taken at 4:19 p.m.) (Back on the record at 4:21 p.m.) VIDEO TECHNICIAN: It is 4:21 p.m. We are back on the record. Please continue. MS. HEYSE: Okay. There -- we have no questions from State Defendants' side so I believe this dep is concluded. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Do you agree? MS. STANYAR: Agreed. VIDEO TECHNICIAN: 4:21 so ends this deposition. We are off the record. (The deposition was concluded at 4:21 p.m. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DISCUSSION In his Response To Critics, in his Expert Report and in his deposition Dr. Regnerus states that the 2006 Norway/Swedish Study is a study of people who were married. (Search in docs for word Scandinavian or Sweden). However Sweden passed Civil Marriage for Sexual Minorities in 2009 and Norway in 2009, the 2006 study clearly states that these were not Civil Marriages, and not Divorces, in fact these were Civil Unions. Link to the actual study. Dr. Rosenfeld in his testimony had no trouble identifying them as Civil Unions. This is why Attorney Cooper probes Regnerus and asks if these were actually marriages, and he declines to set the records straight for the Court. In his deposition notice this discussion about Civil Unions vs Civil Marriages Q. Okay. You say, "In that study," and it looks like you're referring to the Rosenfeld study in the previous paragraph. "In that study, the highest stability rates appear among heterosexual married couples, while notably better stability is located among married gay and lesbian couples than among those in civil unions (as would be expected)." Why would you expect the same-sex couples to have greater stability in marriages than civil unions? A. Because marriage, in some ways, is a reflection of -- it's a self-selective mechanism. If you wish to commit more intensively, on average, people move then towards marriage, so as I mentioned earlier, like marriage is a reflection -- is a -- of enmeshment in a legally more --

Q. Uh-huh. A. -- stable arrangem (Page 141) Q. And -- and that you think is true for both heterosexual couples and same-sex couples? A. Well, Rosenfeld's data indicated that he found married gay and lesbian couples more stable, although that was across only two -- three waves of two years, so the stability that we're talking about is -- is very short-term. It is empirically unknown because we don't have longitudinal data past two years, so far as I can tell, of whether that stability remains true over five, ten plus years -Dr. Regnerus states that he did not know what the results of the study would be. He states that Luis Tellez was sure the study would show that same sex parenting was not as good as opposite sex parenting, but he was open minded of what the future results would be. [Tellez -> Bradley Foundation letter was dated April 5, 2011] Q. Okay. And it's a -- a letter from Luis Tellez who's the president of the Witherspoon Institute to Dr. Dan Schmidt of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And it's dated April 5th, 2011. I'd like to -- well, first of all, do you -- do you remember how you came to see it? Who showed it to you? A. I don't know. It might -- Luis may have sent it to me when he solicited Bradley, but I don't know. Q. Okay. If I could turn your attention to the first page of the letter itself, not the cover page but the letter, towards the bottom, the second to the last paragraph, starting there, if you'll read along with me: "The NFSS will be the first scientifically sound study to examine whether young adults raised by same-sex parents fare as well as those raised in different familial settings. "This is the question that must now be answered -- in a scientifically serious way by (Page 188) those who are in favor of traditional marriage." Stopping right there, a -- first of all, would you call yourself to be -- consider yourself to be in favor of traditional marriage? MS. HEYSE: Ob -- objection. That's been asked and answered several times. THE WITNESS: I stated earlier that I was a fan of retaining the current boundaries. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. Now, by April 5th when this -- 2011, the date of this letter, had it already been determined that you would be the principal investigator of the study? A. Yes. Q. Did Tellez know you were in favor of traditional marriage when he wrote this? MS. HEYSE: Objection, that calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I presume so, but I don't know. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Well, let me ask a -- a different one. Had you ever communicated to Tellez before he wrote this letter, or after, that you were in favor of traditional marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I cannot recall any particular (Page 189) conversation, but I presume he knew. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Why do you presume that? A. Because it was never a -- a subject of dispute between us so far as I can recall.

Q. Well, did it come up in conversation ever? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: It may have. I don't recall. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. But your understanding is he was aware of -- of your views in support of traditional marriage? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So if we can now look at another passage, second page, third full paragraph beginning, "As you know," okay? MS. HEYSE: And I'm going to object to the extent of this is hearsay that it's -- Dr. Regnerus is not involved at all in this communication, so there are foundational issues as well. But you can go ahead and continue. BY MS. COOPER: Q. So if you'll read along with me: "As you know, the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain. It is (Page 190) essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society. That is what the NFSS is designed to do. Our first goal is to seek the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Nevertheless, we are confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study as long as it is done honestly and well. However, this project is very large, and it cannot be undertaken unless it obtains substantial financial support from the philanthropic community." And then let me just jump down to the last paragraph that I'd like to call your attention to. It says: "We are very grateful for The Bradley Foundation's consideration of this request. Mark Regnerus, Robby George, Brad Wilcox, and I would be happy to work with the Bradley Foundation to identify other funding partners." So just a couple of questions. Did you agree with Tellez at the outset that -- this is before the -- well, actually, let me make sure I understand the timing right. This is April 5th that (Page 191) he wrote this letter. At this point, you hadn't collected any data yet on -- on the NFSS; is that right? A. That is correct. Q. Yeah. Did you share his understanding at this time that the traditional understanding of marriage would be vindicated by your study? A. I did not share that. Q. Uh-huh. Do you know his basis for saying that? MS. HEYSE: Objection, calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: If I can point out in Exhibit 8, question at the bottom of the first page, I say: "And honestly my bet was that it would be a far more mixed set of results, with many null findings." That reflects sort of my assumption going forward, as somebody who has analyzed plenty of data in the past, that studies are quite often not what people think they're going to be. You're correct that Luis was stating something that was pretty confident that I did not share at the time. (bolding mine) BY MS. COOPER: Q. Uh-huh. So -- so by this point, April 5th, 2011, he hadn't asked -- or -- or -- actually, did he ask you (Page 192) what you anticipated the results to be? MS. HEYSE: Objection, hearsay.

THE WITNESS: I highly doubt -- we hadn't even gone in the field yet and hadn't settled on survey questionnaire wording, and even the design was still open to consideration -final consideration. To me, this document is Luis trying to raise money, and it had nothing to do with me.

However if this is true that he did not believe in advance the survey results would show straight parent parenting best, then what was he doing going out to Colorado with Brad Wilcox to visit with Right Wing Anti Gay, Focus on The Family, to discuss how to publicize the research before he had received any results? The survey was FIRST sent to survey panelists starting August 19, 2011 (.pdf page 3) and on August 22, 2011 Regnerus was already out in Colorado with Bad Wilcox and Focus on the Family. Link (.pdf page 30)

Throughout his testimony Dr. Regneus says that his study and subsequent comments and writings does not actually measure the affects of gay parenting (because he didnt find but 2 who lived for 18 years with 2 moms) that it was not designed to answer political or legal questions But then he turns around and in fact uses it as a basis to tell the Courts to block same gender civil marriage. In fact the survey WAS designed to show the results of gay parenting, that was the design and what he submitted to his University in the IRB, however once he did not get enough people who were actually raised by same sex parents he changed the parameters of the analysis of the survey results to study from mom+mom or dad+dad to if either your mother or your father ever had a same sex romance, and presumably submitted an amended IRB. Link to mid stream change of Study (.pdf page 10). The Witherspoon letter to the Bradley Foundation clearly states what the purpose and design is, to find and analyze people who were raised by mom+mom or dad+dad. The design of the survey never changed. The questions on the survey never changed. What changed is he decided to NOT analyze mom+mom or dad+dad parenting, he changed what he would analyze because of lack of data, but the design and survey questions never changed, they remained as always, to study same sex parenting, by a gay couple who had raised children together. And it sure was designed TO answer political and legal questions, Witherspoon tells us that in no uncertain terms, that is what Witherspoon was paying for, to get that question answered. Q. Okay. So if we flip now to the Exhibit 6 Q. Okay. So if we flip now to the Exhibit 6, your answering critics article? A. Uh-huh. Q. Page 1, the opening paragraph, an introduction -- well, I'll -- I'll read the intro language so that the context is clear. "The July 2012 publication in this journal of my study on the young adult children of parents who have had a same-sex relationship created more (Page 116) criticism and scrutiny than have most sociological studies. The intensity of the response can be attributed largely to the fact that the results of this study based on a large population-based sample - differed markedly from earlier research based largely on small, nonrandom samples of same-sex families. Others would no doubt disagree. Apart from criticisms about measurement or sampling issues, concern has been expressed about all manner of minutiae, as well as details about the publication process, the funding agencies, and even the data collection firm. Some perceive it as a tool for this or that political project, a role it was never designed to fill. It cannot answer political or legal questions, and is by definition a retrospective look at household composition and

dynamics." Okay. You wrote that? A. Yes. Q. Right? And then I want to actually -- let's look at the next exhibit, Exhibit 7. Page 786, the first page, opening paragraph, this is your response to Paul Amato, David Eggebeen and Cynthia Osborne. Again, I'll read -- I'll read the whole paragraph for (Page 117) clarity. "I had hoped that my words in response to those of Paul Amato, David Eggebeen, and Cynthia Osborne could be few, and after digesting their comments, I am content to be brief. Each voices confidence in what" -- we -- sorry -- "what the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is and can do, and expresses appropriate concern that readers remain aware of what it cannot do. I conveyed similar sentiment in the manuscript itself, and need only echo theirs here. I recognize, with Paul and Cynthia, that organizations may utilize these findings to press a political program. And I concur with them that that is not what data come prepared to do. Paul offers wise words of caution against it, as did I in the body of the text. Implying causation here - to parental sexual orientation or anything else, for that matter - is a bridge too far." You wrote that, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do you still hold that view? (Page 120) A. The study is one of child outcomes of people who -- who come from different kind of household experiences and structures. It doesn't advise directly on any particular legal case or political case. People can read it and draw their own conclusions, and people have read it and drawn radically different conclusion about it. I've not attempted to police those. There is a leap, obviously, from social science data of any sort to political or legal questions which studies typically are not designed to answer. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. So -- so it's -- it's not your view that the NFSS study is a -- supports a position in the debate over marriage for same-sex couples; is that right? MS. HEYSE: Objection. It calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: It's targeted at assessing the comparative relationships of people who've been in same-sex relation -- people who've parents have been in sex -- same-sex relationships. It is information, as I said it would be -- you know, interesting information for people in fashioning their assessments of such -- the legal merits of such relationships, but insofar as we're typically talking about sexual orientation with respect to same-sex marriage, I did (Page 121) not measure same-sex -- I'm sorry -- I did not measure sexual orientation. BY MS. COOPER: Q. But you believe that it's inappropriate, if I understand some of these documents correctly, to use the findings from the NFSS to press a political goal on the marriage issue; is that right? A. I didn't -- could you restate that? Q. Is it your view that it is inappropriate to use your findings from the NFSS to press the political goal of, you know -A. I didn't say it was inappropriate. I -- I said it did not come designed to do so. Q. Okay. Now, you have joined an Amicus brief against marriage for same-sex couples filed with the US Supreme Court; is that right? A. I did. Q. Yeah. And -- and in that Amicus brief you cited your study, among other things, as --

as -- as part of the analysis; is that right? A. I did. Q. And you testified against marriage for same-sex couples in the Hawaiian legislature; is that right? A. I testified about what was known from social science data sets. I don't recall exactly if I had (Page 122) made remarks around same-sex marriage there or not. I -- I may have. Q. And in that testimony in the Hawaiian legislature, you cited your study for your discussion? A. Yes. Q. The NFSS study, just to be clear. A. Yes, one among several. Q. Uh-huh. And now you're offering expert opinion against marriage for same-sex couples in this case and have cited your study in your expert report; is that right? A. Among other things that I cite, I -- yes, that's what I'm doing. Q. Uh-huh. So -- is it your view now that you think your study does support the exclusion of same-sex couples for marriage? A. The study suggests that, at present, among (Page 123) population-based data sets, we see no comparably good replacement for these stable marriage between a man and a woman. Q. Uh-huh. So then does your -- your study -- you think the findings from your study do support limiting marriage to heterosexual couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I think the study suggests that stable marriage among men and women with children is the best optimal -- best environment for -- on average, for long-term child development. BY MS. COOPER: Q. And then because of that, you think your study, then, supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples? MS. HEYSE: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I -- I think it suggests that the boundaries of marriage should be messed with only with -- should not be moved, basically. BY MS. COOPER: Q. I'm sorry. Should not be -- I didn't hear you. A. Should not be moved. Dr. Regnerus stated that he believes having gay parents is bad for children, bad. Although not having read Dr. Prices report before being handed a copy of it in his deposition, he nevertheless agrees with it. Q. So you haven't read the reports by Price or Allen? A. No. Q. Okay. I actually wanted to just ask you one question about -- I want to show you Joseph Price's report. Carole, that's document 2, if we could mark that as Exhibit 25. BY MS. COOPER: Q. Okay. In paragraph 8 of the Joseph Price expert report, he writes: "Based on my own

research and my evaluation of published research in this field, I conclude that children raised by same-sex couples have noticeably worse outcomes than children raised by both a father and a mother. This evaluation is based on my own published study on the topic and the supporting evidence of other recent studies using large nationally representative datasets." And we can just stop there for the moment. Do you agree with Price that there is enough scientific evidence on which such a conclusion can be drawn today? A. Generally, I -- I understand what he's saying and I don't disagree. Q. So you do agree -A. Correct. Q. -- that there's sufficient evidence upon which such a conclusion can be drawn? A. One of the conclusions I made in my study is that the science here is too new and that there is ample (Page 247) evidence in the population-based probability studies of -- in this domain to suggest that the consensus about no differences may be premature, if not incorrect. Q. Right. And I -- I understand that to be a very different conclusion than the conclusion that children raised by same-sex couples have noticeably worse outcomes. Do -- do you A. I presume what -- I mean -Q. Go ahead. A. When I -- when I think about same-sex couples in the NFSS, I think of notable instability and, you know, the 31 kids whose mother and her partners were in the household for a portion or up to one year; the 20 kids who -- 20 respondents who said their mother and a partner were together for four -- and they are a same-sex couple -- for portions of up to two years the smaller numbers of three to four years; and the total of I think 19 cases that stayed together over five years. These are all same-sex couples, the majority of which were not very long in their duration. Q. Really? You -- you think you can -- you can conclude that, that they're not long in their duration -A. Well, in terms of their -- (Page 248) Q. -- because they don't -A. In terms of their household presence in the respondents' lives, yeah, the mothers and her partner were not together in the household with the respondent for very long, on average. Q. But -- but that doesn't speak to the stability of that couple's relationship once it's formed. It may be -- it may go on until one of them dies, right? A. Insofar as if it, you know, formed later in adolescence and we don't know about it, perhaps, or if it was nonresidential after being residential when they were younger, perhaps, although I suspect that's uncommon to have a residential relationship and then it becomes nonresidential. I'm saying most of those same-sex couples in the NFSS were brief in their household presence. From Dr. Regnerus Expert Report in the Conclusions section58. The NFSS, which cannot definitively assess causation but rather simply documents associations, reveals that to be stably rooted in your married mother and fathers household is to foster the greatest chance at lifelong flourishing . It is neither necessary nor is it a guarantee. It just displays the best odds. Adoption

commonly remains a next-best option for many children, though it too is understood as a concession, an accommodation to circumstances in which a child is unable to remain in the custody of his/her biological parents. (bolding mine)

This is not true. Dr. Regnerus did not find but 2 people who had been raised by mom+mom from birth (and those 2 had above average outcomes). So he cannot conclusively say as he does above, that mom+dad is best, because he never found enough of mom+mom or dad+dad to say that they are eliminated, that mom+mom is NOT equal to mom+ dad. And this is what he submitted to the Court, that expert opinion above. Typically Dr. Regnerus will make statements similar to this, Claims are made that gay parenting is equivalent to straight parenting, my study did not find that. I have read or heard him say that in substance many times, and it really is sneaky. It leaves the reader or listener to believe that, he had the data and compared two groups, and found one group better than the other. It hides the fact that he studied still married mom+dad and compares them to parents who were heterosexualy divorced or a single mother (all but 2) and not still together mom+mom. In other words- Found and compared Still married mom+dad Compared against Still together mom+mom or still together dad+dad. This statement, which I have heard him state many times is misleading because it is incomplete, it is the omission of the fact that he never studied still together same sex head families as a comparison group, Claims are made that gay parenting is equivalent to straight parenting, my study did not find that. Is it scientifically ethical for scientists to mislead by omission? Are they obligated, especially when communicating with the public who are not scientifically educated, are they obligated to speak clearly about their research or is it okay to omit key facts? And Dr. Rosenfeld who uses the same data company and surveys on sexual minorities warned Dr. Regnerus back in 2010 that he would not find sufficient numbers of mom+mom parents, Dr. Regnerus didnt listen to Dr. Rosenfeld and just plowed ahead with a number he picked out of his head as a goal of 500 people who were either raised by mom+mom or dad+dad. Dr. Rosenfeld told him he would be lucky if he found 50 as in the era of parenting studied, mom+mom or dad+dad was rare. Link (.pdf page 20) From his Expert report,
60. Certainly same-sex couples, like other parenting structures, can make quality and successful efforts in raising children. That is not in question. In social reality there may genuinely be two gold standards of family stability and context for childrens flourishinga stably-coupled heterosexual household and a stably-coupled homosexual household, but no population-based sample analyses have yet been able to consistently confirm wide evidence of the latter.

This is not true, the Rosenfeld study published in the Journal Demography used the biggest random sample available the United States, the US Census. His study showed that kids with gay parents do not flunk a grade more than kids with straight parents. In other words, no difference. Dr. Regnerus says this in his Expert Report about that study
54. My study joins two other peer-reviewed publications in the past two years in which child outcomes are assessed and compared using data from large, population-based probability samples, revealing suboptimal outcomes of children from same-sex relationships when contrasted with biologically-intact households. One was a reanalysis of US Census data conclusions first reached by plaintiffs expert witness Rosenfeld23 and the other an analysis of Canadian census data.24 Each of the three datasets measures parental same-sex experience differently. The US Census estimates same-sex parental households by gender, without any knowledge of parents sexual identity, orientation, or behavior, while the Canadian census asked young-adult children living at home whether their parents were currently in a same-sex relationship. In other words, there is no established social science norm concerning how exactly to measure same-sex households with children.

I will strongly suggest to the readers that they go back up to the top of this report and find the links to Dr. Rosenfelds testimony. Bottom line is the Court, as I think anyone who reads the science believes Rosenfeld, finds him highly credible and finds Regnerus, Marks, Price and Allen not credible. Often times in these discussions a study out of Australia is cited, Marks cites it for example, the Sarantakos study found here. I would like to show the readers part of that studySarantakos - Children in three contexts In the Journal Children Australia Volume 21, No. 3, 1996 Page 4 of .pdf under Sex IdentityIn many cases these children have been harassed or ridiculed by their peers for having a homosexual parent, for being queer and even labeled as homosexuals themselves. Teachers have reported that children who went through such experiences have suffered significantly in social and emotional terms, but also in terms of scholastic achievement, and have developed negative attitudes to school and learning. These children found it very difficult to adjust in school, and to join peer groups in general. Children with such experiences were reported to show more interest in the circles of the acquaintances of their parents than in the peers of the school or their neighborhood. In certain cases, heterosexual parents advised their children not to associate with children of homosexuals, or gave instructions to the teachers to keep their children as much as possible away from children of homosexual couples. Teachers also reported exceptional cases where a group of concerned parents demanded that three children of homosexuals be removed from their school. Others approached the homosexual parents with the same request. Page 3 of .pdf Column 3

When two or three children of homosexual parents were attending the same school, and if they happened to know about their family circumstances (and in most cases they did), they tended to group together and to spend their time inside and outside of class together. Such incidents were reported to 'make these kids happier', but also to generate negative reactions on the part of the other school children and to motivate them to take more drastic and more aggressive attitudes towards the children of homosexual families. Parents and teachers alike reported that comments such as, 'the pervs are coming' 'don't mix with the sissies', or 'sisterhood is filthy', made by some of the pupils, were not uncommon. Additionally Dr. Sarantakos notes that the evaluations of the students was made by teachers who are subject to their own prejudices. In fact he said within this study, that he wanted to do a follow up study on the level of disapproval of homosexuality by teachers. (he never did the follow up study) Should anyone be surprised that children who are routinely and consistently bullied by their classmates have poorer outcomes? Yet this Sarantakos study is cited as PROOF that having gay parents is bad for children. I see it cited regularly. Now the readers know key portions of that study.