That’s the title of a symposium to be held this Friday at the University of San Francisco School of Law.
Panels will address empirical data on the effects of recognizing (or refusing to recognize) same-sex marriage, the ongoing federal Prop 8 litigation, the role of social movements in reforming marriage, and claims of conflict between same-sex marriage and religious freedom. I’ll be speaking on the last of these panels, to be held in the afternoon. There’s also a keynote address at lunch by the estimable San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese Stewart.
Up to six MCLE credits are available for attendance. You can register for the conference here.
DjDiverDan says:
The future of Same Sex Marriage – I predict that a fairly high percentage will end in Same Sex Divorce. A whole new market for those in Family Law, with even more complications (resulting in higher fees!) as a result of the fact that few if any of the children will be the natural born children of the couple. For Family Lawyers, a big KA-CHING!
February 24, 2010, 10:42 amRandy says:
DiverDan: We are fighting for the right to be just as miserable as straight married couples everywhere and raise ungrateful brats. Don’t rain on our parade!
February 24, 2010, 10:48 amruuffles says:
1) divorce rates among heteros are already sky high
February 24, 2010, 11:05 am2) ever heard of adoption and step-parenting among heteros?
yankee says:
I’m not sure that actually generates higher fees. Without marriage, couples have to set up unusually complex contract and trust structures, which cost money, and which then have to be litigated in the event of breakup. There are also more likely to be complications involving alleged implied or oral agreements. The court must determine custody and visitation whether or not the couple is married.
February 24, 2010, 11:08 amArthur Kirkland says:
When a “homosexuals are an abomination” speaker is being booed vigorously at the Conservative Political Action Conference,
February 24, 2010, 11:14 amtolerance of lovechange is in the air.Chris Travers says:
If so, I don’t see how DiverDan is raining on your parade ;-).
Although none of the issues in same-sex divorce are new or necessarily more complex than straight couples. And natural-born parents can be deceptive.
For example, I knew one guy who moved in with his ex-girlfriend (well, moved-in isn’t the right word. She rented part of her house to him, and he ended up living in a trailer out back while using his portion of the house at best for social occasions).
She died a couple years later of cancer. One of her kids the “father” hadn’t paid child support or tried to be in contact with for years. So he decided to try to obtain custody on the basis that he was the de facto father for the last several years.
So the lawyer suggested that since she had been born the year after my friend and his ex had broken up, that even though it was a long-shot, he should have a paternity test done. If it would come back negative, it wouldn’t hurt his chances. If it would come back positive, then it would make it easier.
The paternity test came back positive, and to his surprise he found he was the natural-born father of a nine-year-old girl. Worked out well for everyone in that case.
February 24, 2010, 11:31 amOrenNotKerr says:
Amen. Now if the LGBT community could boo the “Mormons are an abomination” speakers the long-forlorn center might be able to do something useful.
February 24, 2010, 11:40 amAndyinNc says:
It was just awful how the rich and powerful gays got a Utah referendum passed that prevented Mormons from marrying each other!
February 24, 2010, 11:59 amDjDiverDan says:
(1) Yes, I know; that’s precisely why I’m confident that Same-Sex couples are, statistically, doomed to the same fate; and
February 24, 2010, 12:01 pm(2) Yes, I’m quite familiar with adoption and step-parenting among heteros, but I’m betting (just based on basic biology) that the percentage of naturally-conceived children arising out of a hetero relationship is significantly higher than in same-sex couples.
alkali says:
The Future of Same-Sex Marriage
Pretty much like same-sex marriage today, except with flying cars.
February 24, 2010, 12:12 pmChrisHo says:
How many couples would prefer the current situation, from the stand point of if it were legal they may be pressured into marriage?
February 24, 2010, 12:23 pmHouston Lawyer says:
I’ll have to listen in on the mandatory pro bono ssm divorce requirement.
February 24, 2010, 12:27 pmCJColucci says:
Is OrenNotKerr our old friend Oren with a new handle, or someone else?
February 24, 2010, 12:36 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
How naive I am. I thought buying votes was prohibited by law.
February 24, 2010, 12:46 pmADF Alliance Alert » The Future of Same-Sex Marriage says:
[...] Carpenter reports at the Volokh Conspiracy: “That’s the title of a symposium to be held this Friday at the University of San [...]
February 24, 2010, 12:55 pmLymis says:
Effectively none. While there may be a few people who have very modest domestic partner benefits but do no wish the whole shebang of marriage, in most places those domestic partnerships are available to opposite-sex partners as well, so the existence of marriage as an option is unlikely to affect that.
And for at least a generation, the pressure on same-sex couples to marry against their will is going to be negligible. That will gradually change, but it’s unlikely to affect anyone who is coupled today. Even the more tolerant religions aren’t yet claiming it’s mandatory, parents by and large aren’t pushing for it, and the incidence of unexpected pregnancy is vanishingly unlikely.
Sure, there will be outliers, but they can just stand up for themselves like long-term unmarried straight couples do.
February 24, 2010, 1:02 pmDouglas Weber says:
I find the much more interesting question, which does not seem to get discussed, is “What is the proper relationship of the state to marriage now?”. Marriage as seen by the state is intimately tied to sex and procreation and inheritance. Should the state be involved with these issues anymore? And the legal question: If strict scrutiny applies to analyzing marriage between homosexuals, then does it not also need to be applied to marriage between heterosexuals, etc? And what are the implications if it does for the entire structure of family law issues tied to marriage?
February 24, 2010, 1:05 pmEvilDave says:
As far as procreation goes, it needs to be at least a passing state interest.
February 24, 2010, 1:32 pmThe problem of the modern atheistic welfare state is that it requires the birth rate of an old-fashioned religiously predominant culture. And just ain’t happening.
If you don’t have enough babies to pay the taxes on your ageing population, you’ll go bankrupt.
The US hovers at a birthrate of 2.1 per woman, while the EU & Canada have rates in the mid-to-low 1′s (e.g, 1.7-1.3). Replacement rate (no increase or decreases to population) is 2.1. Blue states have more EU type rates while the red states have >2 replacement rates.
You can offset that a bit by immigration. But seeing as we’re not allowed to assimilate people anymore (especially in the EU), how do you think that will work? Do you think these immigrants you refused to assimilate will be willing to pay your debts and pensions when you’re old?
Simply put we are not creating enough taxpayers to have a viable tax base in 20 years. If we want to keep this nice modern welfare state, the government needs to promote procreation.
EvilDave says:
Rubbish.
February 24, 2010, 1:35 pmWhen my corporate job started this I was ready to leap on these benefits (girlfriend and I were living together then). I got a dressing down you wouldn’t believe (or maybe you would).
That “domestic partner” door only swings one way (at least in the US).
Steve says:
If we want to keep this nice modern welfare state, the government needs to promote procreation.
I hope we find smarter ways to promote procreation than by preventing gay people from marrying each other in the hopes that they’ll be forced to turn straight and procreate.
February 24, 2010, 2:01 pmyankee says:
I think the idea is that the existence of gay marriages will cause straight people to give up marriage with a member of the opposite sex in favor of marriage with their right hand.
February 24, 2010, 2:16 pmptt says:
Bring your umbrella. We’re expecting rain.
February 24, 2010, 2:19 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Yup. Orin asked me to switch because a casual reader confused one of my stupider posts for something he wrote.
February 24, 2010, 2:37 pmJMA says:
CJColucci:
Yes. There was a little confusion among some readers and Oren, being the magnanimous fellow he is, has apparently decided to modify his signature for clarification.
I’d have left it the same, myself. A secret pop quiz to see who’s paying attention. :)
February 24, 2010, 3:01 pmThe Future of Same-Sex Marriage | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] from: The Future of Same-Sex Marriage [...]
February 24, 2010, 3:14 pmLymis says:
That is a corporate policy, not state government. Apples and oranges. Your job can’t marry you either, so while your situation may have been frustrating, it wasn’t what my comment was about. Since the question was whether any gay couples would object to being allowed to marry, what corporations are or aren’t offering really isn’t the point.
I would expect many workplaces that put domestic partner benefits in where marriage wasn’t available to do what they did in Massachusetts – phase them out when marriage becomes available.
February 24, 2010, 3:20 pmjames says:
That is a hilarious and disturbing picture painted right there. I do like that the anti-marriage folks are moving the goalposts back again to procreation now. And many of the same were worried about immigrants having too many babies. Looks like the two problems will solve themselves soon enough!
February 24, 2010, 3:20 pmSome dude says:
I am impressed the name of the symposium accurately says “same-sex marriage” instead of the ambiguous “gay marriage.”
February 24, 2010, 3:33 pmegd says:
Because as anyone who has been married for a while can tell you, it’s anything but “gay”.
February 24, 2010, 4:06 pmMaryanna says:
maybe we should allow only gay immigrants?
egd#29: I’ve been married for several years now, and my marriage is quite happy. I rarely ever actually try to strangle my husband anymore.
February 24, 2010, 4:21 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Bet Orin would prefer if one of your smarter posts was confused for his.
February 24, 2010, 4:31 pmShelbyC says:
Crap. When I voted no on 8 I forgot to factor in the effect on the noise level in restaurants.
February 24, 2010, 5:30 pmrjb says:
I agree! I don’t quite understand why the state is in the business of sanctifying anything at all. Why isn’t the state restricted to certifying civil unions, and let religious authorities talk about “marriage.”
February 24, 2010, 6:48 pmCrunchy Frog says:
A good number of my married friends get more from their right hands (actually left, so as to still be able to text) than they do their spouses…
February 24, 2010, 7:28 pmEvilDave says:
My post said nothing anti- or pro- SSM.
February 24, 2010, 7:36 pmIt merely commented on whether or not procreation was a government concern.
You are the one that read in your own prejudices into my comments.
And that isn’t “hilarious”; it is sad.
stdslove says:
Gay marriage
My concern is that more and more gay men get STD. It seems that gay men is easier to get an STD.
February 24, 2010, 9:34 pmAccording to the report from the largest STD dating site == Positivefish.com ==(if I spell the site correctly), the gay subscribers
increased continually. Most of them are sexy.
Ricardo says:
The U.S. is a very geographically mobile country. A lot of those surplus babies being born in “red states” eventually move to blue cities where they make more money and pay more in taxes. Some of them have even been known to vote for Democrats.
Compared to the U.S., can you think of any other country that has more assimilated immigrants?
In any case, you can look at the voting statistics yourself to see which party most of these immigrants vote for. The reaction against the welfare state will come from native-born Americans, not immigrants.
February 24, 2010, 9:57 pmAnon says:
The state isn’t “sanctifying” marriage. It is recognizing an existing social institution that benefits society.
There’s no good reason to radically redefine that institution to appease a tiny minority.
February 24, 2010, 10:03 pmRandy says:
“There’s no good reason to radically redefine that institution to appease a tiny minority.”
That’s soooo true. If we let gays marry, straight people won’t feel so special any more. So I guess in the states that allow SSM, like Massachusetts, Conn., VT., Iowa and next month, Washington DC (I know, not really a state, but a *district*), we should get married and then have a huge shout out to all the straights that they are very, very special people and give them all the hugs that they need. That way, all sides are appeased!
February 25, 2010, 1:24 amOrenWithAnE says:
And in many ways other than gay marriage, fundamentally redefining it to meet modern social mores.
You don’t seriously think that thousands of years of marriage history supported the notion that a woman could divorce a man, right?
February 25, 2010, 2:31 ambadlaw says:
People love to analogize the arguments against SSM with arguments those opposed to interracial marriage made, but I wonder why no one ever mentions that the arguments in favor of SSM somewhat favor the arguments for no-fault divorce laws.
Back when the divorce rate was 8% and not many male/female couples cohabited in lieu of marriage, feminists made the same sort of “what does my marriage have to do with your marriage?” arguments. Cut to 40 years later, and the divorce rate is 50% or better, more and more children are being born and raised out-of-wedlock (which in and of itself creates a host of other social problems), and now you have the gay marriage proponents saying the same thing.
Yeah, absolutely nothing could go wrong with further altering the definition of marriage.
February 25, 2010, 4:30 amJohn Herbison says:
I have never understood the supposed nexus between being married and procreating. Neither is the sine qua non of the other.
(Maggie Gallagher says otherwise. She should know better.)
Children result from the sexual coupling of a fertile female and a virile male. Gametes don’t ask before merging about their progenitors’ marital status.
February 25, 2010, 5:35 amMike S. says:
Badlaw has a point but I would turn it around. If the state bases the institution of civil marriage on family units for child rearing (even if the alignment is inexact), I could see it. But no fault divorce does far more damage to that institution than a handful of same-sex couples can. If marriage laws want to strengthen the family, it seems that the 50% of marriages that end in divorce should be a much bigger concern than the 2-3% between couples of the same sex in jurisdictions that permit it.
February 25, 2010, 9:05 amyankee says:
John Herbison—you’re ignoring the deep historical connection between marriage and procreation. Traditionally, marriage happens when a woman misses her period, shotguns are retrieved, the happy couple marries after only a brief engagement, and the woman becomes pregnant on her wedding night. Although the birth is extremely premature, the baby is remarkably healthy and well-developed.
February 25, 2010, 10:07 amRandy says:
badlaw: “Back when the divorce rate was 8% and not many male/female couples cohabited in lieu of marriage.”
Really? Any support for this, or just made up or assumed?
Although it’s easy and fun to blame all the ills of society upon feminists and the hippies of the 60s, the biggest factor that leads to divorce is the fact that women now have options that they didn’t back then. Earlier, if you had an unhappy marriage, you just sucked it up because a divorced women simply couldn’t survive. Today, most women can earn a living in some fashion, and so divorce is much more attractive.
The real question is whether the lower divorce rate in the past indicated that marriages were happier back then than they are now. There is no evidence of that, and in any case has nothing to do with whether gays can marry.
February 25, 2010, 10:28 amSteve says:
Back when the divorce rate was 8% and not many male/female couples cohabited in lieu of marriage, feminists made the same sort of “what does my marriage have to do with your marriage?” arguments.
Yeah, my great-grandpa never divorced his wife, he just moved in with his other family and dropped by a few times a year to see his kids on holidays. Those were better days.
February 25, 2010, 11:31 amyankee says:
Do you have a cite for this 8% figure or any evidence that divorce rates spiked after no-fault divorce laws were instituted? If I recall correctly, divorce rates were rising steadily for some time and continued to rise at the same rate after no-fault divorce laws were instituted. Among other things, before no-fault divorce laws were instituted, couples who really wanted to divorce would engage in shenanigans like faking adultery. Conversely, it was remarkably difficult to get a divorce in cases of actual adultery, because unless you moved out very rapidly you were considered to have “condoned” your spouse’s adultery and could not get a divorce. If you tried to reconcile with your spouse first, or were not in an economic position to move out immediately, you were SOL.
As for children born out of wedlock, I don’t think this can be laid at the feet of no-fault divorce laws. In any case, having children out of wedlock is very much not the cause of the social problems you mention; the problem is the parents not raising the children together. Children raised by their unmarried cohabitating parents have about the same outcomes as children raised by their married cohabiting parents. Married parents separating but remaining legally married is not much better (if at all) than married parents divorcing.
February 25, 2010, 12:19 pm4.0 Point Stance says:
Although I’m sure that this will be a very interesting conference for civil rights activists and wannabe policy wonks, I don’t think you should get CLE credit for listening to people talk about how they feel the law should be.
The whole purpose of requiring CLE hours is to ensure that clients are receiving up to date legal advice and advocacy. Unlike some of my brethren I think that CLE seminars are valuable; no attorney on Earth can reasonably be expected to read or even skim every new case and every amended statute to determine what’s relevant to her clients and practice area.
But I don’t see the point of awarding CLE hours for listening to people prognosticate as to what they think the law will be, or should be. As an example, a couple years ago I attended a copyright CLE at Stanford with the estimable Lawrence Lessig on the panel. I make no bones about the fact that I think Lessig hung the moon as far as IP law is concerned. We sat there for an hour while the panelists talked about the theoretical benefits (or drawbacks) of loosened IP laws and their theories of how the Copyright Act should read. Some interesting viewpoints, but when we left I looked at my notebook and found that I’d written down one single case. Not the most efficient use of my time, as I can’t very well cite to “remarks made by panelist at CLE conference,” and when a client walks into the office I can’t tell him what the law might become, if certain people have their way.
Or, if we are going to grant CLE hours for this kind of discussion, time spent reading the Volokh Conpiracy should certainly count.
February 25, 2010, 1:14 pmChris Travers says:
I dunno about that. Most of the Germanic world seems to have held that view since antiquity and there is some evidence that the Celts may have as well (though the evidence there is more shakey).
February 25, 2010, 1:17 pmptt says:
“Marriage” is what we, as a society and in the law, call a “civil union”. Religious authorities unite people in “holy matrimony“.
February 25, 2010, 2:23 pmJohn Herbison says:
That reminds me of a joke that the country comedian Mike Snider tells. He says that one of the churches in his hometown had seen so many weddings recently that the townfolk had begun calling it Winchester Cathedral.
February 25, 2010, 2:52 pmChris Travers says:
Interestingly, etymologically, “matrimony” is connected to clear references to procreation while “marriage” is not.
February 25, 2010, 3:09 pmChris Travers says:
Hence calling it “matrimony” or essentially “motherhood…”
February 25, 2010, 3:10 pmRandy says:
It’s interesting that people who speculate about the effects of SSM always make the assumption that SSM will only have ill effects. In other words, it will only make the situation regarding marriage rates, divorce, etc, worse. They will often admit that they have no idea what the effects are or what could possibly happen, but they know for SURE that there be no positive aspects for anyone at anytime.
Never do they speculate that SSM might actually help marriage rates or divorce rates. Why not?
February 25, 2010, 3:45 pmOwen H. says:
Being born “out of wedlock” causes nothing. Being born in poverty does, and that is the real root cause of all the problems laid at the feet of single-parents. Both of our children were born before we married, and they are just fine, thank you.
February 25, 2010, 9:31 pmAlessandra says:
I wonder if they will address the fact that in countries where SSM has already been legalized, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals and bisexuals shun it like the plague.
February 26, 2010, 4:00 amJohn D says:
Between June 17 and November 6, 2008, approximately 18,000 California same-sex couples married. Let’s call that roughly 125 couples on each of the 142 days when same-sex couples in California could marry.
I’m no epidemiologist, but it hardly sounds that they were shunning it like the plague. They certainly weren’t taking precautions to avoid finding themselves suddenly married.
I know a few couples who wish they had married during the 142-day period, but they wanted to take more than that to actually plan their wedding. I know couples who were worried that Prop 8 would leave them unmarried and didn’t want to go through with it if that was going to be the result.
February 26, 2010, 9:57 pmAlessandra says:
Alessandra: I wonder if they will address the fact that in countries where SSM has already been legalized, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals and bisexuals shun it like the plague.
@John D: Between June 17 and November 6, 2008, approximately 18,000 California same-sex couples married. Let’s call that roughly 125 couples on each of the 142 days when same-sex couples in California could marry.
======
Apparently you didn’t know that California isn’t a country. Would you care to look up the stats for total estimated number of homosexuals in countries where SSM has been legalized versus how many of them got married?
It’s a ridiculous minority. The phrase “shunning it like the plague” correctly applies.
February 27, 2010, 7:02 amRandy says:
In Canada, about 3.5% of all marriages are gay marriages. Since many people place the number of gays at about that percentage, it means that gays in Canada are marrying at about the same rate as the straights. In Britain, 13,500 couples registered for civil unions. In Spain, 4500 couples got married in the first year that SSM was legalized.
Shall I go on, or would you prefer to make up some other fiction about gay people?
February 28, 2010, 1:06 amAnon says:
Just to keep ya honest on that though you aren’t being totally truthful. Many of that “3.5%” weren’t Canadian. You can google the string to get where I got this information…
Of the 21,981 marriages that occurred in British Columbia in 2003, 774, or 3.5%, were between people of the same sex. More than half (55.9%) of the people who entered into a same-sex marriage in British Columbia were not residents of Canada. On the other hand, only a small proportion (4.8%) of people marrying someone of the opposite sex in that province did not reside in Canada. In 2003, Canada was the only country in the world that allowed same-sex marriages between people who were not residents of its territory.
So sure, if you have more up to date information, it would be quite interesting if you were to go on.
February 28, 2010, 9:36 pmAlessandra says:
SPAIN-
From 2005 (when it was legalized) to 2009 (including), a total estimated number of 16 150 SSM took place in Spain, that is, a total of 32 300 homosexuals got married.
A homosexuality estimate of 3,5% of adult population puts total Spanish homosexuals at 1 355 502. This means that roughly 2% OF ALL ADULT HOMOSEXUALS GOT MARRIED and 98% HAVE SHUNNED IT.
A homosexuality estimate of 5% of adult population puts total Spanish homosexuals at 1 936 432. This means that roughly 1% OF ALL ADULT HOMOSEXUALS GOT MARRIED and 99% HAVE SHUNNED IT.
NETHERLANDS-
From 2001 (when it was legalized) to 2009 (including), 12 700 SSM took place in the Netherlands, that is, a total of 25 400 homosexuals got married.
A homosexuality estimate of 3,5% of adult population puts total Netherlands homosexuals at 464 800. This means that roughly 5% OF ALL ADULT HOMOSEXUALS GOT MARRIED and 95% HAVE SHUNNED IT.
A homosexuality estimate of 5% of adult population puts total Netherlands homosexuals at 800 000. This means that roughly 3% OF ALL ADULT HOMOSEXUALS GOT MARRIED and 97% HAVE SHUNNED IT.
I could go on.
The phrasing “homosexuals shun marriage like the plague correctly applies.”
Throwing out the number of SSM without considering how many homosexuals shun marriages is nothing but ridiculous. And, let’s note, it’s nothing but a cheap propaganda trick to hide the actual whopping number of homosexuals who shun marriage.
The stats cannot be precise because it is impossible to determine exactly how many people have a homosexual mindset, given that a significant number of homosexuals continuously lie about what they are, and the same applies for bisexuals. Since the census never asks about bisexuality, there is no way to know in which category the bisexuals were lumped into (heterosexuals or homosexuals), but one can assume that they are mostly lumped with the heterosexuals.
Thus numbers could considerably change if the category division was framed as heterosexuals versus non-heterosexuals, or divided into three: heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.
March 1, 2010, 8:15 amvazzir says:
I am not against on people having different sex orientation. What i am concern about is the biblical point of view. What happened to God created man and woman written from the book of genesis. And now, here it is again, this time marriage of same sex. Wow! don’t we think this is so alarming?
September 12, 2010, 1:21 am