David Blankehorn has an interesting article coming out in the Weekly Standard that appears to be a condensed version of some of the arguments made in his new book arguing against gay marriage, The Future of Marriage.
The article is interesting in part because he eschews the argument made by Stanley Kurtz that data from Europe demonstrates a correlation between gay marriage and a decline in marriage and other social ills. From this (flawed) correlation data, Kurtz argues that gay marriage must have caused the problems. Says Blankenhorn: "Neither Kurtz nor anyone else can scientifically prove that allowing gay marriage causes the institution of marriage to get weaker." He suggests "giving up the search for causation." Maggie Gallagher, too, has avoided relying on Kurtz. Robert George of Princeton has seemed agnostic about Kurtz's claims. Now Blankenhorn rejects the Kurtz thesis. It is becoming difficult to find even opponents of same-sex marriage who think Kurtz is right.
Blankenhorn has a new twist on some survey data, however, that he believes does undermine the "conservative case" for gay marriage. Blankenhorn writes that a 2002 survey of attitudes about families and marriage from 35 countries around the world shows that the presence of gay marriage or civil unions in a country correlates strongly with a series of beliefs that he describes as, roughly speaking, anti-marriage. For example, people in countries with gay marriage or civil unions are more likely to agree with statements like, "One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together," or "It is allright for a couple to live together without intending to get married." Conversely, people in countries with no recognition of gay relationships are more likely to agree with statements like, "Married people are generally happier than unmarried people," or "The main purpose of marriage these days is to have children." (To keep this post relatively short, I won't quibble here with the numbers in the surveys, the methodology, or the age of the data. What would happen to the correlation, for example, if we added a country like South Africa, which recently recognized SSM, to the mix?)
All this seems to show is that the more socially conservative a country is the more likely it is to oppose gay marriage and vice-versa. That's no surprise. It's no accident, for example, that the first states to recognize gay relationships in some form have been blue states, and that the states where the strongest majorities have banned gay marriage have been deep red states.
So what does this correlation mean for the debate? To Blankenhorn, it suggests that support for gay marriage is one of a "cluster" of "mutually reinforcing" beliefs about family life that are anti-marriage. To make this argument he comes up with a revealing analogy:
Find some teenagers who smoke, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to drink than their nonsmoking peers. Why? Because teen smoking and drinking tend to hang together. . . .
Because these behaviors correlate and tend to reinforce one another, it is virtually impossible for the researcher to pull out any one from the cluster and determine that it alone is causing or is likely to cause some personal or (even harder to measure) social result. All that can be said for sure is that these things go together. To the degree possible, parents hope that their children can avoid all of them, the entire syndrome--drinking, smoking, skipping school, missing sleep, and making friends with other children who get into trouble--in part because each of them increases exposure to the others.
It's the same with marriage. Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior. . . . They are mutually reinforcing. [emphasis added]
Accept one of the beliefs (e.g., that there's no need to get married if you want to raise kids) and you are likely to accept them all (including support for SSM). Reognize SSM and you are likely to have a populace with anti-marriage views. But this doesn't work well as an argument against SSM.
First, while he convincingly rejects Kurtz's correlation-as-causation argument, Blankenhorn himself slips between correlation and causation. Unless supporting SSM or recognizing SSM in a country somehow causes people to accept anti-marriage views, or at least causes them to be more likely to hold such views, then there is no "mutually reinforcing" "cluster" of beliefs to be worried about. There is only a coincidence of beliefs, which may or may not be causally related. Support for SSM among individuals or recognizing SSM in a country is no more tied to general anti-marriage views than is opposition to the death penalty (which I'd bet is another correlation we would find) or any number of other beliefs that might be correlated in traditionalist and non-traditionalist countries. Blankenhorn picks certain survey results out of all the questions asked and asserts, effectively, "these must go together, they must be part of the same world-view."
To say that these beliefs are "mutually reinforing," as Blankenhorn does, is just another way of saying that one bears a causal relationship to the other. But as Blankenhorn correctly notes, "Correlation does not imply causation. The relation between two correlated phenomena may be causal, or it may be random, or it may reflect some deeper cause producing both."
Second, as Blankenhorn's analogy to teen smoking and drinking reveals, his conclusion that SSM is a bad thing is embedded in his argument. Yes, teens who smoke are more likely to drink and both produce individual and social ills. But we know they produce social ills not because these activities are correlated, but because there is a demonstrated and distinctive harm that each produces. Smoking causes cancer. Drinking causes drunk driving. Similarly, having children out-of-wedlock demonstrably increases risks to them; SSM may or may not produce social ills, but this conclusion is not reached by noting a correlation with practices that do cause harm.
Think of it this way: Suppose I could show that people who attend church regularly are more apt to hold very traditionalist views about the role of women (e.g., that a woman should be a homemaker, not a professional, and should defer to her husband's authority) or are more likely to be racist (e.g., they oppose interracial dating or marriage), and in fact, suppose the survey data further showed that the more often people attend church the more likely they are to harbor racist and sexist beliefs. Would I have shown that attending church is a bad thing?
Bringing this back to marriage, I'd bet that there was a correlation in 1900 between support for ending the marital rape exemption, support for equalizing women's role within marriage, granting women the right to vote, and support for ending marriage altogether. This correlation, if it existed, would tell us nothing about whether ending the marital rape exemption or promoting women's equality or enfranchising women were good ideas.
I suppose Blankenhorn could respond: "Kids shouldn't smoke because this is more likely to cause them to drink, even if smoking itself weren't harmful. Similarly, we shouldn't have SSM because support for SSM is more likely to cause people to believe things that are demonstrably harmful to marriage, even if SSM by itself is not." But this response would itself depend on a conclusion that there is some causal relationship between support for SSM and support for anti-marriage positions, and yet we cannot know this from a correlation.
A person who's generally anti-marriage could believe, quite mistakenly, that SSM too is anti-marriage. Instead of deinstitutionalizing marriage, SSM could be a small part of reinstitutionalizing it, despite the marriage opponent's most fervent hopes. Nothing in a series of correlations in survey data answers that question either way.
In another part of his Weekly Standard article, Blankenhorn quotes from a number of academic supporters of SSM who do indeed see it as a way of deinstitutionalizing marriage. He argues that this also shows that SSM and deinstitutionalizing marriage "are linked." I'll address that argument in a coming post.
UPDATE: Stanley Kurtz agrees with me that, even though Blankenhorn eschews causation from the correlations he presents, in fact he slips into causal arguments. This isn't a problem for Kurtz, of course, but on Blankenhorn's own logic it's a big problem for his own argument.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Rauch on Blankenhorn:
- Blankenhorn and the purposes of marriage:
- Blankenhorn (Round 3):
- Blankenhorn (round 2):
- Blankenhorn and the marriage radicals:
- Blankenhorn on SSM in the Weekly Standard:
I vicerally dislike SSM. But I don't think that there have been any arguments against it that make sense, given the context of our culture and technology. This is just another example. So I don't see how one opposes it on rational grounds.
I think you should reconsider the implausibility of the "mutual reinforcement" thesis. I have never met someone who favors SSM but who is morally opposed to divorce. I'm sure there are such people (David Brooks may fall into this category), but in my experience, these attitudes DO tend to go together.
Moreover, I would be very surprised if rising levels of SSM support are not correlated with rising disenchantment with the institution of marriage. Do you actually believe that Generations X and Y are more supportive of SSM for reasons that have nothing to do with their shifting attitudes and practices about marriage?
Of course, one could rationally believe that. And nothing I've offered above is scientific. However, I cannot help but note the opportunistic character of your skepticism here. SSM advocates generally insist that they are not trying to redefine marriage. This is a convenient, though unhelpful fiction. They are trying to redefine it, and probably should prevail. But one of the reasons they will prevail is the decline of "faith" in institutions that have historically opposed SSM. I see no shame in this.
Moreover, although I agree that his example is loaded, your examples end up shooting yourself in the foot. I suspect most readers of this blog would welcome the suggestion that pervasive and entrenched superstitious beliefs are likely correlated with anti-social behavior. (BTW, I don't know many SSM proponents who are deeply and unapolegetically religious, either). In your examples, the thesis that deeper structures express themselves as marital rape, anti-franchise laws, or other inequalities is...well, extremely plausible!
One of the more tiresome dimensions of the SSM debate is the suggestion by proponents that only the presence of a visible, marriage-obliterating cloud could possibly prove that SSM could have ANY impact on broader notions of the family within social institutions. I think SSM is likely a cousin of no-fault divorce and abortion in this respect; its existence attests the reality of tectonic shifts in our society, and legitimizing it legitimates and reinforces those shifts.
A conservative blogger ( a pastor, I think!) commented several years ago that the war to save marriage had been lost long ago, and therefore one ought not to blame SSM for destroying it. I think this is about right. I just think it misguided to believe that these various changes really have nothing in common with another, nor do they create reinforcing pathways.
My, how insightful!!!
And how convenient this new tribalism is! No need to examine facts. No need to consider others' arguments. Nope, it's "us" against "them" no matter what!
Is this not simply to say the same thing the Scholars who were the signatories of this letter say…(when they state)
“He suggests "giving up the search for causation." Maggie Gallagher, too, has avoided relying on Kurtz. Robert George of Princeton has seemed agnostic about Kurtz's claims. Now Blankenhorn rejects the Kurtz thesis. It is becoming difficult to find even opponents of same-sex marriage who think Kurtz is right.”
I think this is unfair. Just because you have given up the (very) difficult job of “proving” causation, does not mean you believe its not true- or a valid argument. It simply says that proving causation in the social sciences takes years of debate. You need to run the experiment first, gather all the evidence, and then argue about it for years afterwards. (Think of the debate of the harm caused to children by divorce)
It seems to me that to give up the “search for causation" in Kurtz argument, is to flirt with the idea of giving up on the “search for causation" in the entire field of social science.
This is true. However, in all fairness, opponents of SSM *always* assume that it will have a damper effect on marriage, when, just as logically, one can argue that SSM may actually be beneficial to marriage.
Hoosier: Thank you for your honesty. It is rare to see that! I totally disagree with you, as I'm in favor of SSM, but you do not attempt to make up silly arguments to justify your position. I much more respect a person who says they don't like gays getting married just because it cuts against what they've been taught, or how they feel, or whatever, than trying to make specious arguments.
The theory that has been propounded by Kurtz and others (including, ironically, Blankenhorn) can be described as follows:
1. Liberal values concerning relationships and childrearing predate alternative proposals to traditional marriage (such as SSM);
2. These values result in changes in social norms, principally acceptance of alternative arrangements to traditional marriage (registered partnerships, civil unions);
3. Such arrangements and values are associated with fewer straights getting married and more children being reared out of wedlock and by single parents.
Is the theory implausible? Is it implausible that as social norms concerning relationships become more liberal, people entertain different types of arrangements (having children out of wedlock, single parenting, not getting married) and, AT THE AGGREGATE, children are harmed?
The important point is that the distal variable that’s driving the process is liberal (or libertarian) values about relationships, and marriage in particular. Proposals for alternative arrangements to marriage are just one symptom of liberal norms about relationships (other symptoms could include, for example, easy divorce).
But maybe it's more than that. For example, it strikes me as quite logical that believing that it's OK to live together without a prior commitment that you will get married -- and actually living together with someone who might or might not become your spouse in the future -- actually makes resulting marriages stronger. Because you get a chance to figure out that you really will be compatible living together.
Look, crooked timber and all that, but does this make sense? If you don't think it's important to be married in order to raise kids, then wouldn't gay marriage be less important to you? Conversely, if you're a person who thinks it is important that kids be raised by a married couple (and particularly if you're a gay person who thinks that way), wouldn't you be inclined to support gay marriage?
A friendly amendment concerning the time series suggestion: If liberal values concerning relationships (of which SSM is just one symptom) are driving negative outcomes (e.g., increases in children being reared out of wedlock or by single parents), the starting point for such analyses should be *before* implementation of arrangments to traditional marriage.
You would not expect a shift in negative outcomes at the moment SSM is implemented. Such outcomes should occur before SSM implementation, although SSM (and other proposals to liberalize relationship law) could exacerbate the effect.
So what does this correlation mean for the debate? To Blankenhorn, it suggests that support for gay marriage is one of a "cluster" of "mutually reinforcing" beliefs about family life that are anti-marriage.
Perhaps he ought to check the divorce rate in a blue state like Massachusetts as compared to the Bible belt states before going on about the latter's "cluster" of "mutually reinforcing beliefs" in support of marriage.
In summary, though your theory is plausible, the fact that people react with that level of energy only to SSM (campaigning for constitutional amendments) and not to, for instance, no-fault divorce (beyond decrying it on Sunday lunch with the family), the driver of that energy is probably mere gut feeling, the icky factor, which is afterwards rationalized somehow.
My extended point is that opponents of SSM are simply mistaken - and silly - in their attempts to rationalize their opposition to SSM on such grounds; tactically speaking, it is rather stupid to take on the burdens of an affirmative defense when the other side hasn't made its case. The best tool for skeptics instead is to demand that the proponents of SSM - proponents of a new social order that has never existed in the whole history of humanity - prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SSM will have a beneficial effect on society as a whole. It is simply not enough for SSM proponents to speak of the "right" of homosexuals to enjoy the same marital rights as heterosexuals (self-actualization is not a policy proof) or to say that opposition to SSM can only be religiously-motivated (and therefore suspect), or to note that heterosexual marriage is no utopia and that the practice is full of hypocrisy. No, the proponents must go beyond attacking traditionalists and homophobes, and beyond preaching their rights and loves from soapboxes - no, they must prove that SSM is good for society. To date, proponents have not made their prima facie case. Unless they change their tactics, unless they begin to prove that SSM will be a social good, they will fail. Perhaps a century of positive experience from various countries that have enacted SSM experiments will provide the empirical evidence?
I would be stunned if factor analysis failed to show that attitudes concerning different aspects of relationships (SSM, rearing children out of wedlock, single parenting, civil unions, easy divorce) did not load strongly on the same factor.
Concerning SSM: It just doesn’t seem plausible that relative to people who don’t want SSM, people who want SSM wouldn’t also be more liberal on other aspects of relationships (see parenthetical above). Such a finding would provide one type of support for the “mutually reinforcing” hypothesis (i.e., liberal views about different aspects of relationships, including SSM, tend to hang together).
Do we really need to conduct the study?
Dale Carpenter and a lesson in causality
Attitudes towards heterosexual marriage changed long before gay marriage became an issue. So, might we say changed attitudes about heterosexual marriage caused acceptance of gay marriage?
This would further point to an independent cause which caused both changed attitudes about heterosexual marriage and gay marriage. Is it possible that an acknowledgement and acceptance of greater self-determination for the individual in all walks of life is the cause of both phenomena?
MADD propaganda! Beer doesn't cause drunk driving, people cause drunk driving! You can have my beer when you pry it from my cold, sober hands!
And the point I'm making is that Dale used the "drunk driving" argument to point to the prejudice inherent in the article ("...his conclusion that SSM is a bad thing is embedded in his argument.." It is not apparent that merely because he happens to believe that SSM is bad (researcher bias) the data is flawed. Further, researcher bias may explain why the researcher draws his conclusions (since he's simply rationalizing his conclusions, rather than letting his conclusions derive solely from the data), but the same weak argument could be raised against Dale - his bias that SSM is 'not bad' is embedded in his counter argument.
(Disclaimer: I don't care about the genetic or sociology issues at play, no matter which direction they cut. However, I suspect that ultimately neither will weigh against SSM).
But the correlation between opposition to SSM and more conservative attitudes about same is far weaker. There are plenty of people who oppose SSM and lead quite non-"traditional" private lives: serial divorcers, unmarried couples, adulterous Senators, etc.
The thing with which opposition to SSM most closely correlates is oppostion to ANY gay rights.
Duh.
After all, society seems to give them no incentive whatsoever to form monogamous relationships. Its just so frustrating because people who oppose gay marriage often won't say what they DO support for gay couples and they won't talk about monogamy for them, instead they focus on promiscuity.
From this can we conclude that liberal, anti-marriage, attitudes and support for SSM increase economic growth? I kind of doubt it. It is capitalism and economic growth that produce the individualism and wealth that produce these liberal attitudes.
> "The thing with which opposition to SSM most closely correlates is oppostion to ANY gay rights."
It is true that many portray marriage as a referendum on homosexuality, but that is mostly the people drumming up support to neuter marriage by playing an emotion card.
I'd say most are very liberal when it comes to gay rights but see marriage as a different issue. They support some way of giving benefits and rights to same-sex couples, (in fact close to 50% or more) through CU's, DP's (or even better Reciprocal Beneficiaries) but only half of those supporters would actually remove equal gender representation from marriage.
The divisive nature of the issue seems to be that some don't see marriage as anything more than a sort of government hallmark basket of regulation, recognition and goodies to the human condition we call romance, and others see marriage as more than that.
I'm one of those people that sees great value in equal gender representation in marriage, and the value in encouraging a marriage ideal that promotes responsible procreation.
SSM will benefit the participants and harm nobody. That is a net social benefit.
The quality of the food at church potlucks would improve.
Seriously, there are religions which do teach that. Their congregations tend to be comprised of families which, opposite- or same-sex led, lead pretty normal lives.
> "SSM will benefit the participants and harm nobody. That is a net social benefit."
There are reasons "same-sex marriage" is a good phrase to describe the prescribed alteration in family policy, and some reasons it is not.
One reason "same-sex" or even "gay" is a bad prefix to describe the chane is that it only describes who is getting the benefits, and does not describe the change itself. In fact, it sets its blinders so narrowly at the targeted group that it can misdirect people away from seeing what change is happening and how it will impact society.
One could use the phrase "gender neutral" marriage which describes a much broader swath of the population, and accurately describes the new definition of marriage. That would certainly aid in seeing the issue more circumspectly. Yet that is not the change, it is the product.
But the change itself is best described (to me) as "neutered" as in removed of gender reference all together. Which gender is removed? Well, both from the institution although only one gender is removed at a time for some couples.
Removing the notion of equal gender representation from marriage does the institution harm, it removes it from being an institution of gender integration to being one of sexual-orientation integration. The role that gender integration plays in the formation of families, and in our own attachment to our heritage, is consequently removed. Or even worse than removed and ignored, integration is painted as the moral equivalent of white supremacy. And so integration becomes the new segregation. Such an irony has great implications on many aspects of our progressive view of humanity.
And that is all without noting what procreation means...
So, in short, to say that neutering marriage causes no one any harm is to ignore the example that ex-Gov McGreevey is setting, or the example set by Rosie O'Donnell.
Most, yes, but not all. South Africa stands out as the prime counter example. Recognition of same-sex couples is also spreading through many of the urban areas of South America in the form of state (or provincial) and city registration of domestic partnerships.
The divorce rate in Oklahoma, a deeply red state in the bible belt, is about 75%, well above the national average.
Opponents of SSM here are nothing more than bible thumpers attempting to impose their "beliefs" on everyone else. For example: legalizing tattooing in the state was held up for years by a single state senator simply because he "didn't like tattoos" and they were "against his personal beliefs."
As for SSM being detrimental to the family. EVERY valid peer-reviewed study have shown that, in most cases, the best environment for children is to have parents who are married; the gender of those parents, however, is non-significant.
For those who argue that children of same-sex parents should not have to be subjected to anti-gay harrassment, the solution is simple...they should stop subjecting the children to harrassment.
I'm rendered speechless (fortunately for VC readers, I'm typing) that some think it would be a good idea for me to marry a woman. On whom would you inflict the curse of a romanceless, sexless marriage, On Lawn? Do you have in mind a female relative you really dislike?
>> "Certainly, the nations that have adopted SSM are well above the median income."
> "Most, yes, but not all."
Oddly enough, that one of the most prominent yet overlooked pieces of Kurtz's compelling case. That neutering marriage is an act of treating marriage as an avenue for welfare, and happens in liberal states.
Perhaps it took someone disinterested in wresting Kurtz's work to see it, but Dan Morgan saw it pretty clearly.
Why such a crucial tine in the thrust in Kurtz piece gets ignored, I'm not sure. While Kurtz portrays a many dimensional beast that is eroding away at marriage, far too many people accuse him of being too simplistic.
Because it's even sillier than his principle argument?
That's a wonderful conclusion, Elliott, if true, and, if true, there would be no secular reason to oppose SSM. But conclusions are not arguments and have no evidentiary value. I am simply waiting for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that SSM would have no deleterious effect on society. Until then, I remain deeply skeptical, and in my skepticism, I prefer to remain with tradition and the devils I know. After all, continuing to prohibit SSM creates no new injury on society or culture, if it creates any social or cultural injury at all, whereas I do not know how SSM would affect society.
> "On whom would you inflict the curse of a romanceless, sexless marriage, On Lawn? "
False. Equal gender representation in marriage does not mean people have to be married, or that they have to be married to form lasting relationships with others. It is no more inflicting any type of marriage on you, than raising the speed limit inflicts you to sit car instead of ride a bicycle.
> "Perhaps people ignore it because its just a continuation of a trend that started more than 10 years before domestic partnerships were legalized in Sweden?"
I'm not sure what you mean.
However, as much as neutering marriage is a continuation in the shift from familial institution to welfare institution, (or from self-governance to state governance of romance) then it is certainly reasonable to conclude we can continue to see more of the same.
You can go further than that. If supporting SSM constitutes in any way support for measures that damage marriage, than SSM would damage marriage. You could label it indirect I suppose, but you would still be hypothesizing a causal relationship, with its attendant correlation, between SSM and damage to marriage as an institution. Unless you toss in a nice time-lag as a fudge, that is a measurable thing and Blankenhorn's claim can be measured, and adjudged a failure, against reality.
That "Red State Divorce Rate" thing that popped up on DailyKos around the 2004 election is a load of crap, people. It gets its numbers by taking the number of raw divorces per capita, and it completely ignores the fact that you have to get MARRIED to get divorced. Guess what? Massachusettes, Connecticuit, and DC have the lowest MARRIAGE RATES in the country.
Look at the number of divorces per MARRIAGE, and you'll find that the convenient pattern disappears. (It's pretty even across regions) I'm not going to look up the data again... After the fifth time or so I should have just bookmarked it.
And what voice of reason/ ideological camp/ discernable social group – advocated against the adoption of “no-fault” divorce? Did not this very group predict the harm that would result to the institution should it be enacted? What opposing ideological camp/ discernable social group common argument was cast as…
What do two people getting divorced have to do with your marriage?
P.S. What do two people getting divorced have to do with any individual marriage? Prove it!
Yes, many (but not all) conservatives believe that people are fallible and, as such, are perhaps more hesitant to embrace change - especially fundamental changes to society and culture and economics - than those enamored of rational solutions to all of life's problems. Please do not confuse capitalists with conservatives - the former are 19th century liberals thrilled by capitalism's destructive waves, the latter may accept capitalism as the least-evil, but many conservatives nevertheless remain uneasy with capitalism's heedless and manic destruction of good things in addition to the bad.
P.S. What do two people getting divorced have to do with any individual marriage? Prove it!
At an individual level? Nothing at all. Is it so unreasonable however to suggest that if you legalize no fault divorce more people are going to find it easier to get a divorce?
That seems a little clearer than any link between gay marriage and out of wedlock births. In fairness, I suspect a few marriages would be impacted by SSM being legalized. An example would be if former Governor McGreevy was still married to his wife and SSM was legalized, I suspect he would have left his wife at that time (even if he should have never been married to her in the first place).
Interesting conclusory, completely unsupported claim: most opponents of SSM are actually *very liberal* when it comes to gay rights...
Doubly interesting in that the assertion is made from a Mormon, who by definition is not liberal at all when it comes to gay rights.
Or perhaps you should not use 19th century words for some people are very much emotionally invested with them. I fundamentally disagree with you and your position, yet I can admire the way you phrased your position with skeptic vs rationalist in your first post of this topic.
Can we at least vote on it?
How can you "prove" a positive when you can't "prove" a negative? Your burden of proof is almost impossible to meet, just like its almost impossible to prove the opposite (same sex marriage leads to the decline/destruction/harm of marriage as an insitution).
Instead I would recommend you change your standard to something more like Oakeshott, a skeptic, and prudent but yet not incapable of change through inaction.
I suspect we can agree you will never get proof beyond a reasonable doubt that SSM would have no deleterious effect on society. I would certainly never claim to prove such a negative. So, you have set a standard that cannot be met. OK. I suggest we will proceed without such a finding.
Does Christianity have no deliterious effects on society?
If they want a family, if they want children, yes, "equal gender representation" (as you absurdly refer to it) does require that people marry.
I thought you objected to people forming sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Please flesh out this bicycle metaphor. From previous engagements, I thought you only allowed for one kind of "wheeled vehicle" as suitable transportation and that you did not support use of wheels on any other vehicle so as not to confuse the uh... purpose of wheels. (something like that)
How do you feel about the statistical analysis that comes to the conclusion that SSM is related to, even causes, divorce in Sweden?
I have no idea if SSM will ruin the institution of heterosexual marriage. However, most changes affect the margins first, and perhaps only the margins. So strong het marriage will probably not be affected. Less strong ones which could use some social backup may be affected.
It's been at least a decade since people who were anti-marriage glommed onto SSM as a tool for the destruction of marriage. SSM might not fulfill their wishes, but it's probably worth considering they may be on to something.
What, exactly, is gay marriage? Andrew Sullivan referred to its not looking like its het counterpart because of "the complicated lives of gay men". Is this like the monogamous gay relationship which, upon inspection, turns out to mean only one goes cruising? What if the only difference between two gays living together and doing their own thing is the piece of paper?
Will we need a new definition of "marriage" to cover what has been, until now, considered the usual thing?
But it does create a new injury. Gay people who commit to each other and lead exemplary monogamous lives are penalized in that they are deprived of many of the rights married couples enjoy, such as the right to not incriminate a spouse, the various tax incentives, immigration rights, and so on.
In addition, the children of the gay couples are deprived of the right to have married parents, and the security that it represents. Currently, if one partner dies, the other may not get custody of the child, unlike married couples. That directly harms the child. Marriage, as conservative argue it, it essential for proper child rearing. Well, if that's true, then don't the children of gay parents benefit from married parents, and are harmed when the parents are not?
Again, all opponents of SSM *assume* that all effects will be negative. yet you can just as easily argue that allowing gay people to marry might actually spark a renewed interest in marriage by heteros. Would that be so bad?
Who are these anti-marriage people who have glommed onto SSM as an issue?
Is there not overwhelming evidence refuting this one parent is as good as two business? Agreeing with that seems ignorant to me, unless a person is trying to validate their situation.
You ask about a new definition of marriage. What is the definition of civil marriage in the US? What is the definition of the usual thing?
As opposed to what happens in the rest of the world where marriage is a uh... uh... well, ummmm.
And this, his conclusion:
Aubrey: "Correlation may not prove causation, but it does require some explanation as to why not."
So in other words, we are required to explain the obvious fact that there is no correlation? That's quite weird, and the law of stats doesn't require it.
"I have no idea if SSM will ruin the institution of heterosexual marriage. However, most changes affect the margins first, and perhaps only the margins. So strong het marriage will probably not be affected. Less strong ones which could use some social backup may be affected."
Well, either you DO have an idea or you don't. But please explain how a 'less strong' marriage may be affected. What is your definition of 'less strong."? That the couple doesn't love each other as much as others? That they are going through very stressful times, perhaps a money shortage? That one is cheating on the other?
Then, when you have defined that, you have to give at least a probable scenario as to how gay marriage would 'affect' the less strong marriage of heteros. How exactly? So if their marriage isn't very strong because of the money problem, the husband says to the wife, listen, that gay couple down the street? They just got married. I'm disgusted by that. So I'm going to ask for a divorce. That will solve my money problems, and I can get out of this marriage finally.
Or maybe it's this: the couple has been trying for years to have a child, but they can't. No fertility doctor can help. It has put a strain on their marriage. Then the gay couple down the street gets married. The wife shouts, I can't take this anymore! Gay people can get married, but we can't have children! It's unfair, and the only way to right this is to get a divorce!
or maybe this: The hetero marriage is going along fine. Then a gay couple move in next door. They are friendly. They have dinners together. The gay couple helps with decorating hints, and the hetero couple borrows suger once in a while. Things are fine. Then, the gay couple decide to get married. Now the hetero husband is thinking, well, if those nice gays can get married, maybe I can cheat on my wife with one of those guys? He does, he gets caught, end of marriage.
IF those are not the scenario, the please give me one you think might actually 'affect' the less strong marriages. If YOUR marriage isn't one of the less strong ones, then please tell me how you would end your marriage once gays get married.
Indeed, this would be a rather odd example. I see myself much like a very liberal and libertarian person when it comes to family and marriage, yet, there is no doubt in my mind two (or more!) loving parents are better than a single loving one. The contrary would defy logic.
But I would prefer to see one child being raised in a caring lone-parent household than a family affected by one (or more) violent, abusive and unnecessarily rough parent(s). Maybe that's what Dale Carpenter's example was going to.
Holland went through most of the structural changes that occured in Scandinavian countries and yet its marital trends resisted the declines seen in those other countries. What held back the decline of marriage in Holland for 2-3 decades?
It was declining but at a much slower pace than Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. This was noticed before SSM became a big issue. Holland was different. It had a stronger marriage culture.
But that changed when the SSM campaign built up steam and eventually succeeded in Holland. Coinciding with the success in convincing people that marriage was not essentially for integration of the sexes combined with responsible procreation, marriage trends changed drastically.
The general direction was the same, sure, but the decline became accelerated. The cultural resistance gave out.
Kurtz has pointed to Holland as an example of a society where social policy and governmental structures had changed to accomodate diverse family forms. That did not set off the increased decline in marital trends there. The Dutch cultural resistance stood against the tide. It does appear plausible that the linchpin was removed -- the preference for the core of marriage was dropped when SSM was merged with marital status.
Kurtz does describe the cultural factors that converged in other countries in Scandinavia. He provides substantial context as well as sound analysis. There is no point trying to disprove his arguments by misrepresenting what he has said. Better, try to imagine the SSM campaign without the cultural resistance that so many pro-SSM advocates rale against and seek to change.
The SSM campaign entails a very different view of human sexuality and of the government's role in protecting social institutions. Basically, the SSM advocates tend not to value social institutions as normalizing mechanisms.
Rather, they seek to pry apart the social institution of marriage from the legal shadow cast by that institution.
They emphasize something they call "civil marriage" which, inlike any social institution, is entirely the creature of the government. And the SSM campaign invites the government to regualte romance. At bottom, the campaign is about deinstitutionalizing marriage and treating it as a merely protective status rather than a preferential status. They emphasize governmentn ownership rather than government recognition. The emphasize private contractual concerns over social norms.
A show of hands, please. How many have read Blankenhorn's book?
Perhaps it was the dykes?
The SSM campaign entails a very different view of human sexuality and of the government's role in protecting social institutions. Basically, the SSM advocates tend not to value social institutions as normalizing mechanisms.
No, not at all. And this is a very serious misrepresentation of SSM advocates. No one I know of who advocates SSM argues for any cultural changes that your describe. In fact, we are quite happy with the current culture. What we want is to be INCLUDED in the current culture, which is that of marriage. Who said that we "tend not to value social institutions as normalizing mechanisms? What does that mean?
Please: First name one social institution. Cocktail parties? Believe me, gays are much better at that than heteros! Child rearing? Gays are doing that by the thousands. Attending church? Ditto. Backyard BBQs? See above.
Second, tell me how gays and the people who advocate for SSM demonstrate that they do NOT value whatever social institutions you describe.
"Rather, they seek to pry apart the social institution of marriage from the legal shadow cast by that institution. "
How so? We don't want to pry apart anything. We simply want the SAME legal shadows cast by marriage that you have. We haven't asked to pry apart anything. Otherwise, give examples.
This is all gobblygook that you simply made up. It sounds good, like you have studied something, and it sounds very professorial. But when you look for concrete examples, it comes up short.
Elliot: One part of the definition of traditional marriage is the expectation of fidelity. Sullivan apparently thinks that won't be part of his view of gay marriage. So, do we take out the cleaveonlytoeachother part of the marriage ceremony for gays? Or do we leave it in, and everybody knows they're lying? Or do we take it out for everybody? Or do couples get a choice? And are we going to be allowed to point to a couple who never had the intention of fidelity and say they have a piece of paper, not a marriage?
Thanks for your gracious comments. I will act according to my upbringing and traditions, and I'm raising my children more-or-less the way I was raised. But when it comes to prescribing something for the broader society, I think that one needs to provide reasonable arguments. I have read the arguments against SSM sympathetically, and still found them unconvincing. So what's a guy to do?
(I should add that the only /really/ convincing argument against gay marriage that I've heard was on "Drawn Together": If gays are allowed to marry, pretty soon we'll have Nazis with lazers riding around the country on dinosaurs. Again. And I just can't support that kind of thing!)
As to my marriage, let me tell you a quick story. Having lunch with some old friends a couple of years back. One, a judge, remarked that we were an odd demographic. All had been commissioned officers. All had been married to their first and only wives for thirty years plus. All had parents who never divorced, although some had died. We were so odd, we'd be practically an enemy of society. Which, it turns out, is sort of true. There are occasional sneers directed toward me. Thirty-five years? "leave it to beaver country, eh, heh heh". So I'm not interested in hearing any insinuations thrown in as a distraction.
What on earth are you getting at about proving no correlation? Correlation may not prove causation, but you rarely get causation without some kind of correlation. So the existence of correlation is evidence that there may be causation. It would be useful for those who insist there is none to prove it. Otherwise, the presumption is, the way to bet is, there is causation.
That may be. But, gays are asking for inclusion in civil marriage. So, what is the definition of civil marriage in the US?
With respect to other commenters, please understand that the burden of proof for engineering social changes is proportionate to the importance of the affected more or institution. SUVs and Ipods are not fundamental social institutions (despite what teenagers may think), whereas marriage is a social institution that has existed throughout known human history in all times and cultures, and to the best of my knowledge none of those cultures (even the ones that tolerated or accepted homosexuality) authorized SSM. So the burden on proponents of radical social change is established by the fact that we have no empirical evidence that the proposed practice would be safe for society, and moreover we must face the fact that the accumulated wisdom of all of our ancestors did not accept the practice. Therefore proponents of radical social change must overcome the presumption that the tradition of all societies - and the collective wisdom of our ancestors - is correct and good, or (alternatively) that circumstances have changed such that our ancestors' wisdom provides no useful guide anymore, and, furthermore, proponents must prove that the proposed practice would not create net social injury on a going-forward basis. Too often proponents of radical social change simply reject tradition in toto without examining in depth the logic or lessons of tradition, and are impatiently moved by their own personal desires or simple prejudice in favor of novelty to pursue the proposed change without reflecting on how the radical change would affect society as a whole. Sometimes the proponents of radical social change are right, but sometimes they are wrong, and when they are wrong, the injury can be enormous; why doesn't that counsel in favor of prudence in such matters?
The legal definition of civil marriage is not the point. The point is the general social expectations of the institution known as marriage.
Will SSM change them? Will the changes have some effect, good or bad? Yes, most likely, and bad, probably.
The reason is that gay marriage is not shaping up to be at all like straight marriage is supposed to be.
I am not particularly interested in the rights marriage confers on people as an argument. Most of the rights in question can be achieved by anybody who can read "Legal Documents for Dummies" easily available at the nearest library. Or, if they're gluttons for mistreatment, they could actually pay an attorney to do this stuff.
And when people pretend to believe in a bogus argument, it's worthwhile wondering what they're up to.
But you can't define those expectations if you can't define the institution. All you can do is guess, make suppositions, and wave your hands, as you do when you assert that there exists a secret cabal of conspirators who actually, literally intend to destroy the institution of marriage and use SSM as a tool to do so.
This thread demonstrates a variety of tactics the anti-marriage crowd uses to compensate for a lack of evidence supporting their claims. Some abandon the attempt to provide proof (see Spitzer, insisting that others disprove his claims). Others just make it up as they go along (see Aubrey's conspiracy theory, above). Others substitute rhetoric for proof (see On Lawn's torturous and inane use of "neuter" as the starting point for his even more torturous and inane rhetorical proof that under SSM, "integration becomes the new segregation"). And some just cling to discredited and biased research, as long as it agrees with their preconceptions (see F. Rottles).
I can respect Spitzer's approach more than the others; it at least acknowledges (if tacitly) that there is no material evidence of the harms being touted. But it's not, as others have said, consistent with our usual practice. Black students weren't required to prove that school integration would be harmless, were they? Rights are rights, and we don't (and shouldn't) demand that minorities prove they won't misuse them before granting equal access.
In reality, marriage is a public social commitment, with consequences which are enforced on the rest of society and on government. "Living together" (in contrast to marriage) is a private personal relationship.
Here are some questions that I think need to be answered by both sides in this debate.
(I assert that) There were reasons why married people were given special rights by governments.
What are those reasons? Does anyone know? Are those reasons in any way exclusive to heterosexuals involved in a sexual relationship? Are the reasons exclusive to people in a two-person relationship (no, I'm not arguing slippery slope polygamy)? Are they exclusive to sexual relationships?
Depending on the answers reached to those questions, perhaps we also need a new status in addition to (or instead of) marriage, some kind of asexual plural union (which, by the way, is the only phrase in the English language which would NOT make a good name for a rock band).
I'm skeptical.
Right now we have a system in which some are denied a right that virtually every other adult has for no good reason. Speculation about the consequences is absurd, and talk of tradition is irrelevant. Why, in a nation that purports to be "free," is this minority being denied this fundamental right? Whoever can give an answer to this basic question will also presumably be able to answer why people should lose their freedom b/c they choose to smoke a relatively harmless plant.
And Randy R beat me to it, but I second the kudos to Hoosier ("I vicerally dislike SSM. But . . . I don't see how one opposes it on rational grounds"). Sure, it's hared to escape the label of a particular ideology, and many do tend to vote for one political party more than others. But this site is supposed to be above the fray, and for people to discuss issues intelligently in a way that transcends those labels. It takes courage to state what you wrote, we all ought be willing to learn from one another. While I'm indeed flexible on other issues, I simply cannot accept that all these strained arguments against SSM are nothing more than "gays are icky."
If anyone cares to answer, are any of the SSM opponents here homosexual, or close friends with any homosexuals?
There is no authoritative marriage defintion written on stone to which all defer.
Therefore, anybody who defines marriage will be met with differing definitions and thus "proof" that nobody knows what it is.
The reason conspiracy theories have such staying power is that there really are, from time to time, conspiracies. Simply calling it a "conspiracy" doesn't make a real conspiracy go away.
The traditional aspects of marriage, such as expectations of fidelity and constancy and permanence may be negatively affected by the overt notice that they are not to be expected in SSM. Which, as I noted, Andrew Sullivan seems to think will be the case with gay marriage.
Social expectations are useful in helping people who may be in doubt stay the course they would prefer to be theirs, that they voluntarily chose. Remove some of the expectations and the useful help is weakened.
Some, as I say, think this is a good idea.
They haven't bothered making the argument to me, but if they did I suppose there wouldn't be anything new.
That a friend made the argument wouldn't change my view from my reacton to reading it written by somebody I've never heard of.
"If they want a family, if they want children, yes, "equal gender representation" (as you absurdly refer to it) does require that people marry."
On Lawn’s reference to “equal gender representation” within marriage is anything but absurd. What is absurd is a movement that claims to root itself in the 16th amendments equal protection clause claiming that it is absurd.
Under current law college sports programs must reflect equal gender representation – Are we to believe that that is a compelling state interest yet providing children mothers &fathers are not?
Under Supreme Court precedent “Diversity” within college admissions serves to overcome the test for racial discrimination (the purpose for which the 16th was intended) The law claims “diversity” within a institutional environment to be legitimate purpose – but you would propose that within a family it is not/
Larry Summers is drummed out of his post at Harvard because the Sciences are seen as “under representing” females; this is considered an important social goal, yet you would claim society has no interest in representing either men or women within marriage?
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. (ourselves usually)
I wish I could impart to you the utter absurdity the claims same-sex “marriage” makes of the 16th amendments equal protection clause.
On Lawns terminology stands (firm)
BobNSF (writes)
"Who are these anti-marriage people who have glommed onto SSM as an issue?"
Oh my, the list is legion. Indeed it is not the anti-marriage people who have gloomed onto SSM, but rather the same-sex “marriage” people who have glommed onto the anti-marriage academic coattails.
Its nice to have friends in high places Bob. No?
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION
http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA REPORT: BEYOND CONJUGALITY
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0172.htm
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
They make no secret of it….
The want to De-privilege the Privileged (traditional marriage)
And privilege the de-Privileged (anything but traditional marriage)
If a call for a definition is dishonest, is the claim that gay marriage will redefine marriage also transparently dishonest?
Can anyone at all define civil marriage in the US? Can we presume 1) there is no definition of civil marriage or 2) nobody knows what it is? Can we also presume the people who say SSM will redefine marriage have no idea what the definition is, and therefore have no basis to claim a redefinition?
I understand not remembering the URL for particular information, but my recollection of the marriage and divorce rates data is different than yours. My recollection may be wrong (or I may be correctly remembering incorrect information), but if you were to come across that data again, I would appreciate hearing about it.
"Can anyone at all define civil marriage in the US? Can we presume 1) there is no definition of civil marriage or 2) nobody knows what it is? Can we also presume the people who say SSM will redefine marriage have no idea what the definition is, and therefore have no basis to claim a redefinition?"
No – we cannot presume any of that even remotely.
Those who have done so are routinely shot down by every court. They have consistently failed with this line of (ill) reasoning.
I have noticed this absurd line of reasoning in your other threads. You seem quite fond of it. It also goes to the heart of some of Collins arguments as well.
I shall dismiss with it here using (to begin) the very words of the only State Court to have ruled in your favor. (a 4-3 split decision)
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)
(also)
Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338 (N.Y. Court of Appeals 2006)
(& my personal favorite)
Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006)
(Addressing the larger cultural context)
Orwell Indeed…
Richard, the context of your statement makes it appear as though you believe that this behavior does not chracterize marriages between men or women. If I'm not misinterpreting here, I'm afraid that you are mistaken. How could any couple, hetero or gay, possibly remain united for a prolonged period without such behaviors as well as a host of others (communication, compromise, and love to name just three)? Same-sex couples can (and often do) have all of that commitment without government recognition. What they can't have is the full package of legal benefits. Wanna go along with offering the benefits but calling it something else? Fine by me. It's my marriage now without any legal standing, and it will still be my marriage under alternate offical terminology. YMMV.
Since you asked (And please feel free to ignore it all, VCers.).
My best friend, whom I lived with for two years in grad school, is gay. (But not,you know, /flaming/, to paraphrase Bill Murray.) He and his partner are "registered" as "domestic partners" in their town. But they have no intention to get married, or "married"--take your pick.
I am not gay. Although the bully in my junior high used to call me a "fag." So perhaps I was gay and got cured. Because a bully wouldn't lie about something like that, would he? That could be hurtful.
I'm a Chicagoan by birth and upbringing, although I've lived in Indiana since the /good/ Bush administration. And I keep thinking about the Robert Taylor Homes fiasco in Chicago, and the great Black neighborhood that got destroyed in a fit of Great Society engineering. This reinforces my tendencies to look for the unintended consequences of social "progress." So I don't claim that SSM is risk-free.
But I'm a married man who has been faithful to his (wonderful and gorgeous) wife. And who is home to play with his children by 6pm every night. It is hard for me to see gays and lesbians harming marriage in any way that even compares to the damage done by heterosexuals who: (a) Cheat on their spouses; (b) Divorce when children are still at home; or (c) Devote themselves more to career advancement than child-rearing.
Homily over. I was raised Catholic. It doesn't wash off: You can live a secular life, and be epistemologically skeptical. But you're always what mom raised you to be. My Jewish friends say it's similar for them. Live and learn, eh?
All of them seem to support SSM. A number are in long-term monogamous relationships. And NONE of them have expressed to me any desire whatever to get married.
On a sociological level, I don't understand this. On the other hand, it does go to the point that for these folks, at least, it really is all about "the principle of the thing."
Not that this makes a difference in what the law is, or ought to be. It's simply an admission of something that I've observed, but cannot explain. Perhaps the desire to concieve children really IS deeply ingrained in our ideas about marriage, even if we are gay.
You didn't provide a definition of civil marriage. You did cite court decisions which do shoot down the petitioners, but you didn't provide a definition of civil marriage. Perhaps someone else knows the definition? Why is this so hard? Don't the thousands of years of history and tradition provide us with a simple definition of civil marriage?