In 2012, a bombshell study was published that should have changed everything. It was rigorous, national in scope, peer-reviewed, and its findings were clear: children do best when raised by their married mother and father. In any other context, such a conclusion should’ve helped shape public policy and cultural consensus. But because the study threatened to halt the march toward same-sex marriage, progressive forces moved swiftly, not to debate it, but to destroy it.

The study in question was the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), led by sociologist Mark Regnerus. It asked a simple question: how do children fare when raised by a same-sex couple household? The answers were sobering. Across dozens of indicators, emotional health, education, income, and relationship quality, those raised in homes with same-sex parents fared worse than those raised by their married biological parents. And this wasn’t anecdotal or cherry-picked. It was the largest such study ever conducted, with over 3,000 participants and a design meant to capture young adults’ retrospective accounts of their upbringing—not parents’ self-reporting.

To understand why this study was so threatening, you have to understand what was at stake. One of the major legal and cultural arguments against redefining marriage was grounded in child welfare. If children do best with their mother and father, then laws privileging that structure aren’t hateful, they’re rational and legitimate. They exist not to punish adults, but to protect children. The link between marriage and child well-being was strong, and advocates for same-sex marriage knew it.

So they set out to sever that link.

In the years leading up to and following Obergefell, a tidal wave of studies emerged—many with tiny sample sizes and design flaws—claiming there were “no differences” in outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples. The media, academia, and courts largely accepted these claims without question, often attacking anyone who suggested otherwise. The Regnerus study broke that narrative and was met with coordinated outrage.

His critics leveled a common charge: the comparison group was unfair. Regnerus had compared children of stable, married heterosexual parents to those who’d had a parent in a same-sex relationship—but many of those same-sex households, they argued, were unstable or formed after a divorce. That critique has some validity, but it also misses a massive point. Same-sex parenting, by design, involves severing a child from one of their biological parents. Whether through divorce, surrogacy, sperm donation, or adoption, a child is raised by adults who are not both their mother and father. That loss matters. And the data suggests it hurts.

Even in scenarios where a same-sex couple raises a child from infancy, the structure itself requires an intentional rupture, either the absence of a mother or a father. And while adoption also involves separation, best practices in adoption recognize and validate that loss. In contrast, same-sex family formation is celebrated, subsidized, and socially affirmed, often without any acknowledgment of the child’s biological disconnection.

Relationship stability matters, too. Even in “stable” same-sex unions, studies have shown higher levels of relational churn and open relationship dynamics compared to heterosexual marriages. And family instability (especially romantic or residential turnover) is one of the strongest predictors of poor child outcomes. When kids experience constant change in who’s parenting them, where they live, and what home means, they suffer.

All of this was already clear in the original NFSS data. But just in case the skeptics weren’t convinced, something remarkable happened recently. In 2023, researchers conducted a multiverse analysis of the Regnerus data, running it through 248 different statistical models to see if the original findings held up. The result? Across every single model, children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships experienced worse outcomes. The “LGBT-parent effect” persisted, regardless of assumptions, controls, or coding differences. Regnerus’ work was completely vilified but now completely vindicated.

That should have been front-page news. But it wasn’t, because the truth is inconvenient.

We all know (intuitively, biologically, spiritually) that children long for both their mother and father. No amount of academic theory or legal redefinition can erase that basic human longing. And no amount of cultural pressure can make it disappear.

We’ve normalized every alternative. We’ve shouted down dissenters. We’ve demanded that reality conform to ideology. But children don’t lie. They remember. They know who’s missing.

It’s not bigotry to say that kids deserve both their mom and dad. It’s not hateful to acknowledge that certain family forms are better for children. It’s love that tells the truth. And the truth is this: no matter how many policies or pronouns change, biology still matters. Mothers and fathers still matter.

Why We Fight: Restoring Marriage for the Sake of Children

At Them Before Us, we defend a child’s right to their mother and father—in law and policy, with technology, and in culture. While the world centers adult desires, we center the rights, needs, and voices of children.

That’s why we’re fighting for the restoration of marriage—not as a lifestyle preference, but as a child-protective institution. Marriage isn’t about affirming adult relationships; it’s about safeguarding the child’s fundamental right to be raised by their mother and father. When we redefine marriage to suit adult wants, we sever the biological bonds children crave (all while calling it progress).

The Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015 was more than a legal shift. It was an injustice to children. By eliminating the state’s interest in promoting mother-father homes, it elevated adult satisfaction above child security. We won’t stand by in silence.

That’s why we launched EndObergefell.com—to gather those who believe marriage must once again serve the well-being of children, not the desires of adults. If you care about truth, justice, and children, now is the time to speak.

Because biology still matters. Mothers and fathers still matter. And children are worth fighting for.