William Eskridge and Darren Spedale, coauthors of the book "Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence" (Oxford University Press, 2006), have looked at marriage rates and other evidence of the social effects of recognizing same-sex relationships in the 17 years since Scandinavian countries began doing so.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, (subscriber only) they summarize their findings as follows: Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions. From the op-ed:
[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.
In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.
Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option.
The authors' caution here about gay marriage as a boon to heterosexual marriage is warranted. Correlation is not causation, and it would presume too much from a mere correlation to conclude that a small number of gay marriages in these societies had a significant positive impact on marriage itself, just as it would presume too much from the opposite correlation (if one existed) that they had a significant negative effect on marriage. But it is at least possible from these numbers to say that gay marriage has not led to any significant harm to marriage as an institution (pace Stanley Kurtz). Every year that goes by adds to the strength of this conclusion.
Eskridge and Spedale also find benefits to gay relationships:
Our research has also uncovered additional social benefits. In dozens of interviews with partnered couples and through other sources, we found that marriage rights had an important beneficial effect not only on the couples themselves, but on their local and national communities as well. Couples reported that their relationships were stronger and more durable, that relationships with family members had deepened, that co-workers had become more tolerant and supportive, and their children felt greater validation by having married parents. Many couples reported a greater emphasis on monogamy, which may be reflected by the fact that national rates of HIV and STD infections declined in each of the Scandinavian countries in the years after they passed their partnership laws.
These are exactly the sorts of effects I'd predict from legal and social recognition of gay families. But I'd be cautious about concluding very much from a series of interviews. There are possible methodological weaknesses in this technique, including small sample size, selection and representativeness of the interviewees, problems in questions and interpretation of answers, dishonesty from interviewees who may tell an interviewer what they think the interviewer wants to hear, etc. An opponent of gay marriage could probably rather easily find same-sex couples who got married and were not monogamous, who divorced quickly, etc., and then write a book based on such interviews. A more systematic and long-term study of gay married couples is needed, but findings like these from Eskridge and Spedale are promising. They are at least developments we should all hope for.
Fears about slippery slopes, commonly expressed whenever there has been a change in marriage policy, have also proven unfounded so far:
Finally, what about the "slippery slope" argument — that same-sex marriage would start a dangerous movement toward legal recognition of socially unacceptable relationships? This hasn't happened in Scandinavia; 17 years later, there are still no calls for recognizing polygamy, incestual marriage or marriage to animals. Danes you ask about the slippery slope think you are joking. They realize that same-sex marriages serve essentially the same goal as opposite-sex marriages: lifetime commitment to your better half, the person who completes you.
Yes, you can find advocates for polygamy and other changes in marriage in Scandinavia and among queer theorists and academics in the United States. But there have always been such advocates, going back to the days of the "free love" movement among radicals in the U.S. in the early 20th century. You can find advocates for anything, complete with a Yahoo group and an organization of the like-minded. Google has been a great resource for slippery-slope fearmongering. But the fact is, neither polygamy nor these other destinations down the slope have caught on as serious legal reform as a result of protecting gay families anywhere in the world.
Eskridge and Spedale conclude:
Rather than scapegoating gay couples as the attackers from which marriage needs "defending," pundits and politicians alike should look to no-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements and legal recognition of heterosexual cohabitation as the real culprits of weakened marriage. As the evidence indicates, societies where gay couples have the rights of marriage seem to be doing just fine.
The debate over gay marriage for the past two decades has largely been a duel of abstractions, hopes and fears, unsupported claims, and hypotheticals. That's been true on both sides of the debate, though for gay families the stakes are far from theoretical. With several countries now recognizing gay marriages, and with almost 1/5 of the U.S. population living in states with gay marriages or civil unions, this period of abstract debate is coming to an end. The debate will start to become an empirical one.
What we can say with confidence so far, based on the evidence, is that the sky doesn't immediately fall when a society recognizes gay relationships. As time passes without the sort of cataclysmic consequences predicted by opponents of gay marriage, we will be able to say more. We may soon be able to say, with good evidence to back it up, that recognzing gay marriage leads to greater stability in gay families, with benefits to gay couples, children raised in gay families, and communities. The signs so far are pointing in the right direction.
Incidentally, I wonder how many people are really open to being convinced by empirical evidence of this sort, as opposed to just greater familiarity with gay couples in their personal lives. I still see that as the great driver of the trend toward increasing acceptance of gay relationships and gay marriages (gay people coming "out" and becoming visible to their friends, family-members, coworkers, coreligionists, and so on).
Kurtz's article
Kurtz argues that Eskridge and Spedale ignore the Netherlands in their analysis, in part because the data from the Netherlands (which, in Kurtz's view, is a more valid indicator of the effects of SSM on traditional marriage) is inconsistent with their biases.
Quote:
"Now Spedale and Eskridge have repeated their basic line in an October 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, “The Hitch,” yet have done so with a telling omission. Remarkably, Spedale and Eskridge have nothing whatever to say about marriage in the Netherlands, the country that has had formal same-sex marriage longer than any other place in the world. Spedale and Eskridge treat Scandinavian registered partnerships as the only case worth talking about, supposedly because we’ve had full gay marriage in the Netherlands for only five years. Yet we’ve had registered partnerships in the Netherlands for nearly a decade, and full gay marriage for about half that time. It’s absurd to rule a decade’s worth of data from the Netherlands out of court, especially when much of that time includes the world’s first and longest experiment in formal same-sex marriage. This straining to completely omit data from the Netherlands is the surest sign that Spedale and Eskridge are on shaky ground.
"Given the fact that marriage has deteriorated more rapidly in the Netherlands than in any West European country over the last decade, the reluctance of Spedale and Eskridge to talk about the Dutch case makes sense. Yet they do treat the issue in their book. I’ve discussed the Netherlands extensively (see, for example, “Standing Out”), arguing that all signs point to same-sex unions as a key factor in the decline of Dutch marriage. In “Smoking Gun,” I offered a detailed rebuttal of Eskridge and Spedale’s treatment of The Netherlands. And I’ve had a direct exchange with the authors on this issue. (See my Corner post, “Eskridge-Spedale.”) Given all that, I think it’s telling that Spedale and Eskridge have now decided to avoid talking about the Netherlands altogether.
Chumund: Yes, I think many principled "opponents" of gay marriage would be convinced by data that suggests that gay marriage has a benign effect on marriage and children. That is the major concern of people like me, who balk at the thought of messing with an ancient, bedrock social institution like marriage.
My feeling is "let other countries do these experiments; we'll sit back and see what happens." Why not make such an important decision after we have some data?
It would be extremely interesting to know why the experience in the Netherlands is/might be different than that of Scandinavia. Of course, societies are different, so policies might not be so easily transferrable. (Which throws into doubt the whole "experiment" idea!) For instance, the Netherlands has all sorts of unique elements-- like their liberal drug laws. Their whole attitude toward "law" and "order" may be quite different than the Scandinavians.
I have always felt that the Scandinavian countries get away with more lax social policies because they have a relatively homogenous society that enforces "good" behavior through their culture rather than laws. I base that idea entirely on the fact that most Scandinavians I have met (about ten people) have been rather stodgy (not exactly science, but it's all I got).
Sunday, June 04, 2006
SMOKING GUN or MISFIRED ARGUMENT?/Eskeridge and Spedale Respond to Kurtz
"Stanley Kurtz is the 'EverReady Bunny' of the same-sex marriage debate, a character who moves forward unrelentingly on a quest to prove that same-sex marriages are harmful. He is sure that state recognition of lesbian and gay unions in Europe has harmed the institution of marriage. But he never quite settles on a reason why this should be so, and his most recent argument illustrates the wildly unscientific thinking behind a lot of the American opposition to same-sex marriage.
For several years, Kurtz argued that same-sex marriage (in the form of registered partnerships) in Denmark and other Nordic nations had meant the “end of marriage” in Scandinavia. This was an overstated claim, at the least. As we document in our new book, the marriage rate actually increased and the divorce rate declined after Denmark adopted its same-sex registered partnership law in 1989.
This 'end of marriage' argument was accompanied by a similar argument, that same-sex partnership legislation has inspired straight couples to bear and raise their children outside of marriage. This, too, is not factually correct. Our book demonstrates that the percentage of Danish children born outside of marriage went up from 11% in 1970 to 33% in 1980 to 46% in 1989 – and then, after the passage of the partnership law in Denmark, actually declined slightly. Between 1997 and 2004, the rate hovered between 44.6% and 45.4%. As our book also documents, the out-of-wedlock birth rates in Norway and Sweden, which had been steadily increasing at a fast clip in the ‘70s and ‘80s, stabilized after those countries recognized same-sex registered partnerships in 1993 and 1995, respectively.
Finally, as we document in our book, the long history in Scandinavia with registered partnerships has seen some benefits accrue to the institution. Not only have long-standing trends in lower marriage rates / greater divorce rates / greater numbers of out-of wedlock births reversed themselves or stabilized, but same-sex unions have also proven themselves to keep relationships stronger, strengthen families, protect children, promote tolerance, and possibly lead to benefits on a national scale such as lower national rates of STD and HIV infections.
Sensing that he is losing the case with those countries with these longer-lived partnership laws, Kurtz has substantially shifted to the Netherlands, as illustrated by his recent article ;The Smoking Gun,; (National Review On-Line, posted June 2, 2006). The Dutch had one of the lowest rates of nonmarital births in the world in 1970; between 1970 and 1982, the rate doubled, but only to 5%; between 1982 and 1988, the rate doubled again, to 10%; between 1988 and 1997, the rate doubled yet again to more than 20%. This was before the Dutch made any changes in their marriage laws. Since 1997, the nonmarital birth rate has continued to rise at a steady clip, about 2% points per year, since 1997. In 2001, the Netherlands celebrated its first same-sex marriages.
Kurtz argues that he finally has data that support his claim that same-sex marriage 'causes' high rates of children born outside of marriage. For several reasons, this data reveal no causal link.
First, the Netherlands' institution of same-sex marriage is too recent to draw any conclusions at this point. Kurtz responds that the Netherlands recognized registered partnerships in 1997 (they became available in 1998). Unlike the Scandinavian laws, however, the Dutch partnership law was, and remains, available to different-sex as well as same-sex couples. In fact, more heterosexuals take advantage of registered partnerships in the Netherlands than same-sex couples. Hence, the symbolic message it was sending was different: not just recognition of lesbian and gay unions, but also providing straight couples an alternative to marriage. Providing them another option might be expected to draw straight couples away from marriage.
Kurtz also claims that the 'campaign' for same-sex marriage began in a big way much earlier, perhaps 1989-90. The mere possibility of same-sex marriage, he seems to be saying, 'causes' straight couples to abandon the institution and have children outside marriage. This is a lavish understanding of social causation. From our ethnographic study in Scandinavia, as well as our survey evidence, we doubt that even formal changes in the law have predictable effects on social practice. In any event, Kurtz introduces no evidence demonstrating that more than a handful of Dutch citizens were even aware of this 'campaign,' and in fact most Dutch homosexuals did not know about it.
Second, an event does not 'cause' a trend if the trend pre-existed the event. If your income rises at a steady rate of 5% a year, you get married, and then your income continues to rise at a rate of 5% per year, you cannot conclude that your marriage “caused” those subsequent wage increases. Your marriage presumably did not hurt, but there is every reason to believe that it didn’t help either.
The nonmarital birth rate in the Netherlands has been increasing exponentially since the 1970s. It galloped up in the 1980s, and continued that gallop in the 1990s and the new millennium. The rate doubled between 1982 and 1988, doubled again between 1988 and 1997, and is on the way to another doubling. These are significant increases, but registered partnerships, not to mention same-sex marriage, came right in the middle of this demographic trend. Neither institution seems to have exacerbated the trend.
Indeed, the data support a more interesting hypothesis than the one Kurtz supposes. For social reasons, the Dutch were by the 1980s no longer so strongly committed to a norm that a marriage certificate is a necessity for couples to form permanent, committed partnerships and raise children. The compulsory-marriage norm continued to weaken in the 1990s – and that is the key reason Parliament was willing to open registered partnership to different-sex couples.
Third, and perhaps most important, Kurtz makes the mistake David Hume calls the 'post hoc proper hoc' (after that, therefore because of that) fallacy. (1) The U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state laws barring different-race marriage in 1967, and (2) American divorce and cohabitation rates went up dramatically after that. This sequence does not mean, however, that (3) the first event caused the second trend.
To figure out why Dutch nonmarital childbirth rates have gone up so dramatically in the last generation, we need to look at other variables – including changing attitudes about women working outside the home, the trends in neighboring countries as Europe became more integrated, and evolving social mores. To “blame” this trend on same-sex marriage, which came at its tail end, is like blaming the last batter in a 10-0 baseball game for 'causing' the home team to lose. The last batter did not prevent his team from losing, but neither did he cause the loss.
The 'you lost the game' phenomenon we have just described is called scapegoating. Interestingly, the Dutch don't 'blame' gay marriage for the phenomenon of families outside of marriage in their country. Most Dutch citizens who know about Kurtz’s argument find it baffling, though not a few are amused. But scapegoating is a serious matter. To blame the group (gays and lesbians) that has been most fundamentally denied even minimal rights in the last generation for the decline of marriage is not only unscientific, it is fundamentally unjust.
In any case I think it is important to distinguish two arguments.
1) The slippery slope to polygamy.
2) Harm to the traditional institution of marriage, i.e., less people getting married.
I think the data do seem pretty suggestive that no serious danger of 1 results from gay marriage. Perhaps you might think that in 100 years or something this will come about but it certainly isn't an immediate worry.
As far as far future results don't you think that the people in the future will be just as reasonable as we are and have more evidence and data than we? If so shouldn't you believe that they will only start allowing polygamous unions if there is a good reason to do so (and thus if you think there isn't have confidence they won't?).
As for 2 I think the right thing to say is there is no obvious effect either way. The data is just unclear on this point but it definitely isn't the case we have good empirical reasons to believe gay marriage is harmful.
Actually the only statistic I'm really worried about is unplanned out of wedlock births. It isn't obvious that less people getting married is a bad thing.
In fact I've read (not sure if it is true) that many more people get married now than ever did in the Victorian age and other past 'virtuous' eras. If so it seems entirely plausible that a high divorce rate is related to people who shouldn't really get married doing so.
I do think the empirical data is worth looking at and evaluating, but a lot of Americans' principled opposition to SSM is to SSM in principle; they don't believe two men can be 'spouses' and they believe children have a right to their own mother and father. What did the data say about children of divorce in the first years during the push for no-fault? Kids are resilient, no terrible effects, most kids do fine - most of that's true, but it doesn't mean divorce isn't a bad thing.
What about the very large number of people in America, possibly a majority, who consider same-sex relationships to be "socially unacceptable"? As you've acknowledged in a previous post, we have already had a "slippery slope" regarding the forced acceptance of homosexuals that has brought us to this point. If any state's legislature decides that a majority of their constituants want same sex marriage or polygamy or any other arrangement then I wouldn't personally have a problem since that is how a political system works. But that isn't what is happening. Unelected leftist judges are deliberately misinterpreting the law to force SSM down people's throats and the authors of the op-ed piece dismiss those with qualms or objections about this as "scapegoating gay couples as the attackers from which marriage needs 'defending'." Well when people attempt to prevent me from having any voice in what kind of society I live in by using immodest judges to change the law, it really does feel like an attack. I can't even agree with them because all power of choice has been taken out of my hands. As supporters of legalized abortion have found, that sense of powerlessness is a good way to stir up opposition.
The various legislatures in their wisdom have decided that nobody, gay or straight, man or woman, black or white, can marry someone of the same sex but that anyone can marry (with a few restrictions) a single person of the opposite sex. By definition everybody is being treated equally under the law and has recieved their due process. As Anatole France famously said, "The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." All parties are being treated the same and the fact that only one party might wish to do what is prohibited is irrelevant. The law is distinct from morality and there simply isn't a legal issue here.
But I guess the question is what it would take in order for you (or someone else) to draw that conclusion ("that gay marriage has a benign effect on marriage and children"). Particularly with a question so broad and with so many confounding factors, it is hard to imagine there being definitive proof to that effect.
You might want to re-phrase that.
The various legislatures in their wisdom have decided that nobody, gay or straight, man or woman, black or white, can marry someone of the same sex but that anyone can marry (with a few restrictions) a single person of the opposite sex. By definition everybody is being treated equally under the law and has recieved their due process. As Anatole France famously said, "The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." All parties are being treated the same and the fact that only one party might wish to do what is prohibited is irrelevant.
Um, you do realize that your quote from Mr. France cuts against your position, not in favor of it?
If you are interested in reading something by William N. Eskridge, Jr. and Darren R. Spedale check out the OUPblog where they talk about the Marriage Protection Amendment. http://blog.oup.com/oupblog/2006/06/questions_and_a.html
If by "socially unacceptable" you mean unlawful, then I would think a very large majority of the population holds the opposite view. If by "socially unacceptable" you mean something like "not really my thing", that term can apply to a vast range of perfectly legal activities and relationships.
These are two separate issues. One issue is the usual majoritarian objection about judges deciding any issue contrary to the will of the legislature, something that reasonable people can debate about a wide range of issues, with the specifics varying not just from issue to issue, but from state to state. Different states have different constitutional provisions, some states have elected judges etc.
The second issue is the absurd position that somehow preventing gay people from getting married constitutes a "defense" of marriage as if gay people getting married (regardless of how such marriages obtain legal recognition) were an attack on marriage. I have some sympathy for the first position, though I don't make blanket statements on it since, as I've said, the circumstances vary from case to case, but the second to me seems like pure demagoguery.
Nothing in the text of the First Amendment exempts from its protection speech that threatens physical violence against an individual or speech that defrauds another individual, yet such speech is held to be outside its protection. What would you call the basis for that view, other than "policy grounds?"
One of the main reasons people are against gay marriage is because they argue that it will 'destroy' marriage. Most thoughtful people have realized that doesn't make any sense, and now we have some degree of proof.
So the one big argument against gay marriage has been taken away from you. Deal.
[...] and they believe children have a right to their own mother and father
What was that about inventing rights, again?
Don't know if it's true either, but (assuming of course this is population-adjusted -- if it isn't it's very silly) how does the situation compare for people "like us". You'd have to have been doing very well for yourself a century ago to have the health, wealth, education, and freedom that are available to those fairly low into lower middle class today. (Just a guess as to whole swaths of people who wouldn't be getting married.)
Not to mention that post-Loving, there are so many more potential mates for each of us :-)
It's the concept of natural rights vs. rights that have never existed before in human history, much less in the American system of democratic governance, up until about ten years ago in certain Western elite jurisdictions, and in this country generally only by judicial fiat.
In any event, as Dale Carpenter acknowledges, the empirical evidence on whether SSM is beneficial or detrimental to society isn't conclusive one way or the other so far. My point was just that a substantial majority of Americans still believe it's wrong and wouldn't choose to have it legal or ever socially acceptable (only 20 or 25 states may have amendments now, but well over 40 have either a DOMA or amendment or both, and of course Congress passed DOMA also), except that several courts have improperly decided the question on their own.
However, it's probably NOT FOR THE REASON YOU THINK:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52120
Slope? What slope? Every slope around here only goes up!
And what about the very large number of people in America, possibly a majority, but significantly growing over the past decade, who consider same-sex relationships not only okay, but are willing to grant them the status of civil unions or marriage?
Listen, I'm gay, and I'm in a relationship with another man. What's it to you? Are you going to try to stop me from dating this man? I don't really care whether it is socially acceptable to you, for the same reason I don't really care about who you date or marry. It's not my concern. I ask only the same respect from you.
Prenups REDUCE divorce by getting rid of the financial incentives for a divorce!!!
Do they know ANYTHING about the statistics on who initiates divorces at all?
The vast majority of the time, the spouse seeking the divorce is the one who is CHALLENGING the prenup, not the one who wrote it.
People demand that their spouses sign prenups to eliminate the financial incentives for divorce contained in no-fault divorce laws.
Typically, it is the wife who seeks a divorce. More than two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by wives, typically no-fault divorces. See the National Center for Health Statistics data and other studies discussed at length in Arizona State University researcher Sanford Braver's book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths (1998).
About three quarters of all divorces among families with children are initiated by the wife, typically over the husband's objection.
Academics, feminist researchers, and "men's rights" groups who study divorce may not agree on much, but they uniformly agree on this: most divorces are no-fault divorces initiated by wives.
And typically, it is the husband, who is at a greater risk of a non-consensual divorce than the wife, who wants the prenup, to eliminate the incentives for divorce, such as excessively generous alimony and equitable distribution. (Another sensible reason for seeking a prenup is so that a spouse can preserve assets for the benefit of the spouse's children from a previous marriage).
A: It can, but blogs get boring fast when they go too far afield. Just check Glenn Reynolds.
I suppose if "equitable distribution" is an incentive for divorce, then the husband wants a prenup that will provide for inequitable distribution, so as to disincentivize divorce.
Which of course supports their contention that no-fault divorces are at greater fault for divorces than gay marriage, at least in Scandinavia.
As for prenups, I don't know any stats, but I do know that my sister is a right-wing religious fanatic, and she says that her church tells her that prenups are bad for marriages, because it presumes the marriage will end in divorce. At least the religious right agrees -- prenups are likely *a* cause of divorce.
Perhaps prenups help facilitate divorce, though, since each spouse will know exactly what they will get, instead of fighting it out in the courts and not knowing exactly how it will all play out?
Do you read this blog? Only about 35-40% has anything to do with the constitution. How about elephants memories? Or the hanging paradox? Or the recent series on military history? Or federal overcriminalization?
But when someone posts a study that suggests that gay marriage might actually be a good thing, then we should only focus on the constitution. I understand.
But it seems to me legislative issues are well within the field of a legal blog. In other words, you seem to be claiming this should only be a litigation blog, but I don't see why it should limit itself in that fashion.
I don't think it is true. There was a news item a little while ago that reported the percentage of unmarried households has surpassed the percentage of married households for the first time in US history.
(Going from memory here, can't seem to find the article I read.)
By your logic, Loving was incorrectly decided. The law prohibiting interracial marriage in Virginia applied equally to blacks and whites: everyone could marry someone of their own race and no one could marry someone of a different race. Are you really willing to say that is all the Equal Protection Clause requires?
And why is it so "improper" for judges to decide constitutional questions? It is their JOB to overturn the legislature sometimes. That is our system of checks and balances.
Cornellian, that's the second time I've seen that France quote brought up, and I don't understand how it "cuts against" the idea that a gay people aren't being denied "their rights" by laws forbiding SSM? Could you explain that to me?
Mr. France is being sarcastic. He's parodying the simple minded "the law really does apply equally therefore what's the problem?" argument by pointing out an example of a law that is facially neutral (no one may sleep under bridges or beg in the streets) but in reality will apply only to the class of people who might need to do such things (i.e. poor people) and not to the class of people who have no need of such things (i.e. rich, or at least comfortably middle class people). Another example would be to argue that a law prohibiting anyone from entering a synagogue is fair and non-discriminatory because it applies equally to Jews and to Christians.
The previous poster cited Mr. France in support of his position that a law permitting one to marry only members of the opposite sex is fair and non-discriminatory because it applies equally to straight and to gay people. The poster is apparently unaware that Mr. France's statement was meant to illustrate the absurdity of such a simple minded approach to "applies equally."
One might quibble on the first point depending on whether one considers there to be only two classes, white and non-white, or multiple classes, white, black, asian etc. However, I agree with the second point for the stated reason.
Thank you Cornellian
No, no, NO! There are no benefits from global warming, only horrible, disastrous, and insurmountable consequences!
[/thread hijack]
> I don't really care whether it is socially
> acceptable to you [...] I ask only the same
> respect from you.
And you get it! I don't care whether you can get married. Therefore, if there's an initiative to make gay marriage legal, I don't care and don't vote for it.
But that's not really respect, is it? That's part of the problem: you claim you need the same respect that you give us, but you don't actually give us respect. In fact, you don't give us much of anything.
@ Captain Holly:
> There was a news item a little while ago
> that reported the percentage of unmarried
> households has surpassed the percentage of
> married households
I saw that. The margin is tiny. Amusingly, it's expected that this minor discrepancy will be more than erased if we legalise gay marriage.
Yet another phrase better re-phrased.
Terrific. So at the end of the day, I can't get married because of people like you. And that you consider respect?
My point to the other person was that she objects to gay marriage. Why should she care whether I am married or not -- to me, that's an argument for letting me marry, and let me worry about the consequences.
But the bigger point of this post is that it removes on of the few arguments against gay marriage. I can't wait to hear how On Lawn will argue out this one!
I wasn't taking a position against gay marriage in my comment. I wasn't discussing gay marriage at all.
I was discussing prenups, which don't foster divorce, and which foster sensible financial planning.
Prenups actually reduce divorce by eliminating financial incentives for divorce.
In at least two thirds of the divorce cases I have read in which a prenup was at issue, and the case listed the party who initiated the divorce, the party who initiated the divorce was the one challenging the prenup.
And the cases were typically no-fault divorces sought against well-behaved, middle-class husbands.
(Most divorces are sought by wives: at least two thirds of all divorces, typically no-fault divorces. And most prenups are challenged by the wife, not the husband).
Cornellian makes the intuitively appealing argument that a prenup waiving "equitable distribution" would result in unfair distribution of property, thus actually fostering divorce.
But "equitable distribution" is a term of art, and in practice, it can be anything but equitable. Some times, the judge's division of property is fair, sometimes it isn't. Two similarly situated wives (or husbands) can receive radically different treatment from different judges in the same state -- or even from the very same judge.
(Different states vary a lot in how they approach divorce law -- for example, Missouri courts are more generous to impecunious spouses than Virginia in "equitable distribution," but less generous with regard to alimony).
Prenups often provide clearer rules for division of property than the vague maxims of divorce-law equitable distribution jurisprudence. They can also take into account tax rules, accouting concerns, and desires to provide for the children of previous marriages.
Of course, I am sure that there is some complicated norm-weakening story which concludes otherwise.
Well... Given Kurtz's laser like focus on the Netherlands, and given his desire to insist "marriage has deteriorated more rapidly in the Netherlands than in any West European country over the last decade", Kurtz's reluctance to consider the data describing the actual marriage rate in the Netherlands makes even more sense.
Let's try something and see what we discover. Visit Eurostats then:
1) find the marriage rate table (under 'people/population/families and births/ marriages),
2) fish out the data,
3) paste the data into an excel spread sheet,
4) subtract the 1995 marriage rate per 1000 persons from the 2005 marriage rate per 1000 persons and then
5) sort by this change in the marriage rate over the last decade?
We find during the past decade, marriage rates in Liechtenstein, Cyprus, Portugal, Slovenia, Belgium, Italy, Hungary all declined faster than in the Netherlands!
Yes, it seems the decline in Netherland's marital rate is at most the 8th largest in the EU. The list of countries with larger marital declines includes several in Western Europe. (I say "at most" the 8th largest because Eurostats web page doesn't have sufficiently complete marital rate data for France, the UK or Turkey.)
Oh, and if you think I picked the marriage rate because that's the best statistic to support the claim that marriage is deteriorating, you are dead wrong. You can repeat this procedure with the divorce rate.
Between 1995 and 2005 the divorce rate per 1000 persons declined in the Netherlands. Not only that, the Netherlands divorce rate has the 6th largest decrease in the EU.
I'll close by noting that while Kurtz may be alarmed at the growth in out of wedlock births in the Netherlands, I think it's safe to say marriage isn't doing at all badly. Or, at least, one should be equally alarmed by the death of marriage in Roman Catholic Italy!
In addition the argument “children have a right to their own mother and father” troubling. Using “rights” arguments for preferences is not a good thing. If a child does not have a father and a mother has his rights been violated? If so by whom? What recourse is there? I was 12 when my father died. I did not then have a father. Under this logic my rights were violated presumably by the deity or nature depending on your beliefs. Exactly how was my right to be enforced? What we mean is that it is good for kids to have two parents. But to say something is good doesn’t have the same impact as claiming they have a “right” to it. Rights are something that trump other arguments hence the reason they are used inappropriately here. In fact they are used here in the sense of positive rights similar to all other socialist concept of rights -- ie that one has a right to something as opposed to the classical liberal concept that rights are requirements that others not do nasty things to you.
The conservative argument that one has a “right” to a mother and a father is similar to FDR’s litany of positive rights during the New Deal.
I was raised by a single mother due to the death of my father. Optimal, perhaps not, but that was the hand life dealt us. Would I have been better off with a father? Hard to say, that depends on the father I suspect. But assuming a good man, yes, I would have been better off with a good father than only with a mother. But I also would have been better off with a second parent of any gender. As I see it banning gay marriage may only deny children a better situation than what they have. It is that old maxim of not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I find the argument by Jay Myers a bit hard to follow. Is it a slippery slope because lots of people “consider same-sex relationships to be ‘socially unacceptable’.” (Contrary to his wishful thinking the majority do not think that way. He says he wouldn’t have any problem if the majority of the state legislature want SSM since majority rules (no such thing as individual rights there just majority rule). Well, then he should remember that civil unions for gays in Connecticut passed through the legislature. Nor should we forget that both houses in California passed the same thing for gay couples only to have the Republican governor veto it saying, get this, that this is a matter for the courts to decide not the legislature.
He also argues that everybody is equal because everyone has the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Thus all parties are treated the same. This would be similar to arguing that a law banning all churches except Catholicism is fair because everyone has the equal right to attend any Catholic church of his or her choice. That some people might be Jewish just is left out of the equation.
As for forcing SSM marriage. What is meant by this? It means allowing other people to marry. It does nothing to the antigay bigot at all. It leaves them alone. It violates neither life, liberty nor property. What bothers them is that want to stop other people and this reduces their ability to control the lives of others. The only people who enter into SSM are there because they want it. So no one is forced. And nothing the law does can force antigay people to like SSM, they can’t be made to like it or to approve of it, to attend such ceremonies, or to engage in SSM themselves.
Allowing other people freedom is not the use of force against those who wish to deny that freedom.
Gino takes this weeks award for most absurd, irrational and probably bigoted remark. I am tempted to refer to his “man-on-dog” relationship by questioning his parentage but I will keep it more polite than he has.
Kim is right to bring up natural rights but then assumes that “rights that have never existed before” can’t be natural rights and the two are in conflict. That is a very different view of natural rights. He/she(?) thinks that SSM is a “right that never existed before” and this is false. There have been legal sanctions on same sex couples in history and in different cultures. But legal rights are not natural rights. If marriage is a natural right then all people possess it including gays. It would be far better for his/her argument to deny natural rights and claim that only positive rights, enacted by law, exist. I think the natural rights view undercuts the case against gay marriage.
Certainly I would think that if heterosexual marriage is in trouble that the problem would most likely lie with heterosexuals. It does seem absurd to blame trends on what happens to straight couples on gay couples. Certainly if I were greatly concerned about something in my life I would look at what I can do myself to change my problem instead of trying to forge arguments to blame my problems on a third party. Straight marriage had problems long before gay marriage was an issue. Most insurance companies would call this “ a pre-existing condition”.
And finally the debate might benefit from this video from a Dutch TV show. A kid sings about his life growing up in gay family with two fathers. It upsets the Christianists to no end so those who hate the idea of gay relationships shouldn’t watch it. The song is fairly good and the boy can actually sing. Supporters of equal rights for same sex couples will like it. Those neutrel might find value in seeing it. Opponents will have fits. So you were warned.
Eskridge and Spedale subtitle their book "What we've learned from the evidence" when in fact, assuming this article reflects the book, they've learned little and virtually nothing in terms of conclusions or a more positively construed science. A more appropriate subtitle would be "what we're intuiting, hoping and surmising ..." or "how we're leveraging the evidence we've gathered ..." The narrow range of empirical data used to leverage their circular reasoning - in the form of question begging, suggesting cause/effect, strawman arguments, etc. - is so tenuous as to be non-existent vis-a-vis the conclusions they're suggesting.
By analogy one might also note a time when most European countries substantially reduced their military budgets, then, do a study 17 years on, note none of the countries had been invaded/occupied, and therefore conclude, if only suggestively, that reduced militaries have little or nothing to do with national defense concerns. (Studiously turning one's gaze from instances like Rwanda, Kosovo or Darfur; perhaps discounting these instances since they are not internal, domestic concerns.) One of the points being that it is a hugely more sophisticated and complex set of factors which would need to be taken into account before any meaningful or justified conclusions might be reached.
Another analogy, one which more closely approximates a science, would be global climate modeling. ("More closely" since rather than a "social science" with all the attendant human/social indeterminates, climate modeling is at least based much more strictly upon the physical world w/o any human factors, at least so beyond the interpretation of the data, setting up the model and the experiments, and other forms of human error, bias, judgements, etc.) It's not difficult to think of other analogies still. Or, from a different perspective still, it would also be easy to note several negative European trends, such as increased suppression of free speech or demographic problems, and correlate that to SSM in a manner which suggests cause/effect.
A highly specious use of purportedly "scientific" claims, at least suggestively so. I.e., circular reasoning, cherry picking, social policy and ideology along with hoping and guessing - not any type of a more positive science or definitive conclusions, not even close. If they want to argue for policy, fine, but at least in part this is an attempt to forward a policy position via the label of science without the substance, at least so in large measure.
(And no, this is not "gay bashing" or any type of phobia, this is more simply a description of what the authors are attempting to forward. If any phobia is present, it's the authors' ratiophobia, the fear of reason, the fear of a more closely and conscientiously argued position - in this case a social policy position. Transparently acknowledging what one's science does not show, it's limitations, etc. is just as requisite to any more genuine and substantive science as arguing for what one's science does show. This is especially true for the social sciences, where a huge dose of skepticism is most often warranted; also where, when skepticism is being discouraged or frowned upon, one might even venture the guess that ideology and policy decisions are trumping any purported "science".)
If Sweden passes a law because it thinks gay marriage is a great idea; how is that analogous to a court finding a legal right to gay marriage DESPITE public consensus it is not a great idea? In Sweden the slope isn't so slippery, because they haven't recognized a right to be recognized as "married" despite public disapproval (the public there actually approves of gay marriage!). As long as the public disproves of polygamy, then it may be discriminated against.
Here in the US, to the contrary, gay rights activists are busy doing their best to establish a legal claim of entitlement despite of public disapproval. That doesn't bode well for legal prohibition of polygamy and incesutous marriage. If public disapproval is inadequate, isn't the slope quite slippery?
Public disapproval is a valid basis for dismissing a constitutional (or for that matter, statutory) claim?
I'm confused.
On the one hand, you seem to be saying you find a problem with Eskridge and Spedale's main conclusion, which is: "It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians."
On the other hand you seem to be saying, "We can't tell anything about the effect of recognizing same sex marriage on the health of marriage based the data Spedale and Eskridge describe".
This sounds to me like you and they both say: We can't tell anything about the effect of same sex marriage on the health of marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something you are saying?
1. The burden is on the SSM advocates. Marriage is too important an institution and has been around for too long in it's present form to alter without compelling evidence, and the evidence must be compelling, this evidence aint even close.
2. It must be decided by legislation and not by judicial fiat. Miscengination cases were preceded by some legislative deliberation and action on Civil Rights, there has been no legislative action yet that even comes close. No one here who is discussing this data can even say if it was controlled for the Muslim population, so wake me when a state has developed enough of a consensus to pass true SSM law(hopefully with some long term empiric data behind it)
Until then waiting is the price homosexuals will have to pay society until we can make SSM won't threaten the overall benefits of the society as a whole. No one group's interests, mine included (whatever that included, can ever trump the overall interest of society as a whole
The constitutional claims that there is a "right" to gay marrriage; or that such discrimination fails rational basis analysis are meritless. Public disapproval, absent a specific constitutional provision to the contrary, is a sufficient basis for law.
Do you understand the use I put the analogies to? They are highly germane in the prior post, also in what follows.
However, following is the more inclusive quote that you took note of:
"Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians." Eskridge and Spedale
I wouldn't characterize that as their "main claim" (and wonder why you do so) and I'm not sure they have a single "main claim" they are forwarding. Also, the inverted form of their logic here belies the fact it's a rather nullish formulation, seemingly used more for rhetorical effect than anything substantial in a scientific sense: i.e. rather obviously no such claim can be made, due in large measure to factors previously noted, e.g., the note about "social sciences" with all their attendant human/social indeterminates and variables. Their statement here is similar to the form where someone passes a remedial math test and then indicates, "Well, this doesn't definitively indicate I'm ready to take on the lead position at the Max Planck Institute." I.e., hardly much of an admission since it's so perforce obvious that one wonders why the statement is made in the first place. It's virtually a form of hubris, not at all rational or scientific, though it does serve a certain rhetorical effect which helps to forward their social policy preference.
Here's another quote from the authors:
"[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution."
In fact, that's a rather forceful claim and it comes closer to their "main point," imo, but it too is incredibly specious since it serves to leverage their social policy preferences, and does so on the basis of their own extremely limited data, and that doesn't even take note of the skepticism which needs to attend social science claims in the first place. The authors deftly mix a quasi-scientific and pseudo-scientific jargon, for purposes of rhetorical and policy prescriptive effect; theirs are not, first and foremost, closely reasoned scientific statements. They invoke a "scientific" jargon and frisson, but first and foremost they are seeking policy prescriptions. This very much is the type of jargoneering some jurists employ to rationalize their fiats.
Moral disapprobation is itself sufficient, constitutionally speaking. Does a law proscribing public nudity appeal to "fact and logic" or merely the social norm that people should wear clothes while in public? If Sweden passed a law providing for "nudist equality" and things went along smoothly, would our courts be justified in overturning our "irrational" laws on public nudity?
I guess you could make some sort of hygiene argument; but would that mean public nudity should be allowed if this was remedied? Our law and our society is suffused with all sorts of moral precepts that don't rely on "facts and logic," but instead rest on fundamental moral and social norms.
Moreover, I think you may be overlooking an important possibility--social morals and customs often reflect an unarticulated wisdom developed over generations of social evolution. The idea of gay marriage, even in societies tolerant of homosexuality, never occurred until recently. Does this tell us something? I think it may.
From a legal standpoint, marriage as it exists in America today bears little resemblance to any institution that existed anywhere in history until the twentieth century. Neither party is legally subordinate to the other: neither can beat the other, control the other's property, force the other to enter into legal relationships, force sex on the other, and so forth. By contrast, marriage throughout history has almost universally been a relationship in which a man is placed in a position of legal authority over a woman. This is a new development even in this country, where marital rape was legal until the 1970's or 1980's. So from a legal standpoint marriage is (thankfully!) a completely different institution from what it was back in the days when women couldn't even own property. And I haven't even mentioned other legal developments like relatively easy divorce.
The same is true from a social standpoint. People are expected to choose their own spouses, to marry for love, to love their spouse. This kind of widespread, individualistic love-marriage is a recent development, and as far as I know no other society has ever had anything like it.
So claims that "marriage has been around for too long in it's present form to alter without compelling evidence" are totally bogus. The current form of marriage (a relationship of love between two equals, neither of whom is legally subordinate to the other) is new. So why regard the one-woman-one-man rule as sacrosanct when all the other stuff wasn't?
Listen, I don't buy the Loving analogy for a lot of what I think are very good reasons. But the fact that just about every gay marriage activist thinks this analogy is "complete" and responsible pretty much proves that the slippery slope is real. Just about anybody--even the US Supreme Court--would have categorically rejected the idea that Loving would in anyway support a claim to same sex marriage. The very idea would have been completely absurd. Anybody who suggested such a wacky idea would have been rightly condemned. But to Dale Carpenter Loving is obvious support for this position. Should gay marriage advocates rethink their position on the Loving analogy?
Well, a child's rights are certainly violated if you kill the child. Yet if the child dies of natural causes or an accident, nobody's rights have been violated. If I lock you up in a cave, I'm violating your rights, but if you just fall into a cave and get stuck, there's no violation of rights.
It's the same idea here. Someone's rights are violated only in a situation caused by another person. A similar situation that arises naturally isn't a violation of rights.
If your father died because he was killed by someone, you could say that person violated your rights by taking away your father.
I read your earlier comment as suggesting that public disapproval was relevant to the issue of whether such a right existed in the first place, and I disagreed with that point. Lots of perfectly valid statutory and constitutional claims are highly unpopular.
Firstly, they weren't norms in the reductionist, categorical sense your retort implies. For example, in the West women achieved suffrage, variously, but roughly early in the 20th century. And men, millennia prior to that? No, around a century prior to that, in some cases in Europe mere decades. Too, there were all manner of slaves and other oppressed classes in preceding millennia, white slaves, black slaves, slaves in asia and the far east as well. Your simple categorization is precisely that, stunningly simplistic.
Too, which social norms reflect "nothing" vs. which norms reflect something more substantial or even critically substantial is for the demos, the electorate, to decide, not jurists via fiat and an arrogated norm which is forced upon society via those judicial fiats.
We still live in a democratic republic, not a krytocracy (rule by judges).
... Just like a majority of Americans still believe it's wrong and wouldn't choose to have divorce or single parenthood legal or ever socially acceptable, right? (modulo outstanding circumstances, of course.)
Attempting to take a natural rights view of gay marriage can lead to an internally consistent argument, but one must be consistent for that to work.
Now, is Michael arguing with these stats? if so, please provide us better stats. From this simple fact, we know that gay marriage has not adversely impacted either marriage or divorce rates. It doesn't take a brain trust to figure this out.
But even so, as Lucia point out, the researchers were careful to say that one should not draw any causal conclusions. However, at the very least, the idea that gay marriage will 'destroy' marriage as institution finds no ground in these stats.
All I can gather is that Michael B is saying that they whole premise and research methodology is wrong. How so? He states: One of the points being that it is a hugely more sophisticated and complex set of factors which would need to be taken into account before any meaningful or justified conclusions might be reached."
Then please, Michael B., tell what sophisticated and complex set of factors should have been taken into account. Also point to us where Stanley Kurtz HAS taken those same set of factors into account. Also, please tell us why they would come to a different conclusion.
Given the number of flawed, dishonest and agenda driven studies that we have been subjected to over the last few decades (anybody remember Kellerman?), I'd like to see more than this single study.
I've appreciated our conversations on this subject and I think you have made a lot of valuable contributions. So I honestly hope you take the following as friendly advice. Recently you have been posting some assertions about what most gay marriage proponents believe. In my view, this is something you should avoid. For one thing, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that gay marriage proponents are monolithic, and indeed in my experience they frequently disagree over everything from tactics (such as whether bringing court cases is a wise or even legitimate strategy) to basic conceptions of marriage and why gay marriage should be supported. For another, if you are not a gay marriage proponent yourself, you really are not in the position to be speaking for them, and it doesn't help your credibility on other issues to take on such a role. In short, I think if you focus on what you yourself believe, and let the gay marriage proponents here speak for themselves, you will end up participating in more rewarding discussions.
On a more general point:
I think Joe's comments about burdens of proof underscore the problem I identified above: it may be extremely difficult for any empirical evidence we can realistically expect to find to satisfy people like Joe, and that is because of the high "burden of proof" he has imposed on gay marriage proponents.
More broadly, it seems to me this is an important form of prejudice against gay people which explains much of the dynamic over this issue. Most people who want to get married--even rather unsavory people, up to and including the likes of drunk strangers getting hitched in Vegas and convicted child rapists getting married in prison--don't have to prove that their marriage will not somehow destroy the entire institution of marriage. So why exactly is such a burden being placed by Joe and others on gay people? Why do gay people, and not all these others, have to prove that their marriages are not so virulent (and metaphors of infection really do seem appropriate here) as to threaten marriage entirely, and indeed western civilization itself?
In other words, I think in most similar cases application of this burden of proof would strike us as ridiculous, if for no other reason than that the numbers involved are so small. But somehow, many people seem to accept the idea that gay people are uniquely capable of working great changes on institutions like marriage, changes in magnitude completely out of proportion to their small numbers.
Frankly, I think that this idea is simply produced by a primitive prejudice against gay people--that like other "taboo" things, gay people have magical powers of infection and corruption that threaten all who come near them--dressed up in pseudoscientific language. Nonetheless, I am willing to keep an open mind, but I think the burden of proof is in fact properly on those who claim that a small number of gay marriages will somehow be able to bring down what is indeed an ancient and pervasive human institution, not the other way around.
"The responsibility of this marriage contract, of this trousseau, and of this additional sum, I take upon myself and my heirs after me, so that they shall be paid from the best part of my property and possession that I have beneath the whole heaven, that which I now possess or may hereafter acquire. All my property, real and personal, even the shirt from my back, shall be mortgaged to secure the payment of this marriage contract, of the trousseau, and of the addition made to it, during my lifetime and after my death, from the present day and forever." (Aramaic prenup)
Responding to the bit I italicized:
I can explain why I believe this is E&S's main claim. I'll do so at some length because, based on your response to Chimaxx who mentioned Kurtz, I suspect you are not aware of some historical context. (First: no slight intended; there is absolutely nothing wrong with being unaware of Kurtz's claims. Second, I apologize if I am wrong. It will be long.)
I suspect one of the main reasons E&S are writing this book is in response to Kurtz's widly circulated, previously published claim that
A) one can examine the existing historical data, detect negative correlations between passing ssm laws and the "health of marriage" and then
B) one can use this data artifact to surmise ssm itself caused marriage to decline.
I, and many others think #2 is Kurtz's "main claim". Point 1, is his subsidiary, supporting claim.
Historically, one primary counter arguments to Kurtz has been: "You can't assume correlation is causation". That is, Kurtz's B cannot be sustained by Kurtz's point A even if his A were correct.
One of the primary responses of Kurtz's supporters has always been:
C) You are only insisting on that well known logical principle to refute Kurtz's main claim B, because the data-- A supports our position and not yours. If the data were otherwise, you would dump that well known logical principle like a hot potato.
(At which point, to counter C, discussions about the inaccuracy of Kurtz' point A ensue. You may read your criticism of E&S to find the major logical elements of that critcism-- that's why Chimaxx made that crack about your comments. Though, for the record, those disagreeing with Kurtz all think you can't use the very scant historical data to make forceful claims about the effect of ssm on marriage.)
In this historical context, E&S's book is an entry in this "historical argument".
Reading E&S's arguments,I think the "brief summary" of their argument is:
1) The data from Scandinavia show marital indicators generally improved after marital type rights were extended to homosexual couples and
2) We can't attribute this improvement to ssm (due to a wide variety of factors.)
E&S certainly say both these things. Of course more time is spent on #1 because it is a discussion of the existing data. Point 2, relies on the sole statement "B follows A doesn't mean A caused B". It just doesn't take much text to say that. The point, and the full logical argument underlying it are both in the "analysis" and "conclusion" bits of E&S's various publications. Conclusions are typically where one finds "main points".
Note also: the E&S argument "parallels" the Kurtz argument, except that it says we can't use that positive data to support our conclusion. So yes, I do think #2 is their "main point" -- just as I thought Kurtz's #2 was his main point.
(Also, in historical context, demonstrating 1 shows is required to address the counter-counter argument point C above. E&S are showing they aren't insisiting on the logic underlying #2 simply because the data suggests the a trend they might dislike. That is, in the context of this argument, E&S provide data to show #1 not as a major point but as a argument to Kurtz's supporters counter-counter argument C!)
So, to wrap up, that is why I think E&S's #2 is their main point! Evidently, you think #1 is the "main point" and #2 is some sort of apology tagged. We can disagree about that.
I'm mostly trying as you is whether you agree with the logic underlying E&S #2 which is: "B follows A does not mean A caused B." Do you?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
On to this bit:
I thought I understood the point of your analogies. I think you are trying to drive home the logic underlying E&S's point #2!
In one analogy you seemed to say that
* western Eurpoean nations substantially reduced their military budgets (A) and
* later weren't invaded (B),
* that doesn't mean reducing their budget prevents invasion.
Absolutely true. This has the structure that "B follows A does NOT mean A caused B".
So: Was that the point of your analogies? Or was it something else?
Because if it is the point then, as I see it, you agree with the logic underlying E&S's #2.
And if you hold this logic, I would think you are trying to make a very forceful point: You are saying we couldn't determine the effect of ssm on the health of marriage from the scant existing historical data even if the data had shown SSM harmed the health of marriage.
(As, in your global change analogy, I think you are saying we can't diagnose global climate change from the scant historical records for temperature record and atmospheric CO2 and you think we couldn't even if the data seems to counter a position you hold. Although, you seem to be alluding to a subsidiary point about the role of using general circulation models, and doing experiments to test the submodels contained in those larger models. )
Anyway, here is my question: Are you saying: We can't use this historical data to detect the effect of ssm on the health of marriage in Scandinavia?
So far, I haven't seem Michael B say anything to suggest he's familiar the theories Dr. Kurtz propounds in his numerous on-line and dead tree magazine articles.
Until Michael B says something laudatory about Kurtz's work, I think it's wise to assume Michael B. would use the same standard when criticizing Kurts as when criticizing E&S.
But marriage is a natural right too, its based on the oxytocin/vasopressin mediated mammalian pair-bonding response. This mechanism can make sexually active adult humans pair-bond with a sexual partner regardless of that individual's gender.
That is what's changed from previous 'human history' - we now know that same gender sexual attraction and pair-bonding isn't a pernicious vice or sin but just the totally natural way some citizens are. So we again come down to the marriage questions:
should the state support all of its naturally married citizens pair-bondings equally? If not, why not? Are there really some citizens that are better off being promiscuous and not pair-bonded? How is it in the citizens, the society's, or the state's interest to NOT promote pair-bonding of sexually active adults?
Marriage is a natural right, and that's why all citizens should have reasonable license to the state contract in support of marriage regardless of the gender of their spouse.
As to children having a natural right to their parents, Ken was right - there is a meaningful difference between situations that occur naturally and those that are intentionally caused. In the cases where gay couples (or single people) cause to be born a child who, by design and intent, will be deprived of either their mother or their father, that child is being treated unjustly.
I agree that it is possible to discern what constitutes natural rights, in the natural law sense, through reason and empiricism, and that this is not merely a subjective question.
But, of course, that principle cuts both ways. In