A Vote For Science

At least three US states have constitutional amendments designed to bar same-sex marriage on their ballots this cycle (See summary graph for current policies in all 50 states). I was recently bemoaning the complete absence of rational argument in support of the effort in California and some astute commenters broadened my focus. One comment led back to some interesting data on the effect permitting gay marriage has on heterosexual marriage. Data = good.

Wouldn't it be nice if we were able to talk about actual data when considering important political issues? Ahhh, a monkey can dream...

Let us get up to speed on the CA, FL and AZ initiatives (which are simple) and the proponents' rationales for amending their constitutions (an act that should not be taken casually, imo).

From the California voter guide:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The arguments for and against may be of interest. In addition I do like to examine what the proponents are arguing in support of the amendments. It is perhaps a generally academic or logical behavior but it is certainly an essential feature of a scientific approach to take a look at hypotheses and see, above all else, do they fit with logic and/or existing knowledge. How likely or unlikely is the hypothesis to be true and what sorts of investigations might we need to conduct to resolve unknowns? So let us see what the CA proponents are using for a rationale.

because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between "any two persons" rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of "marriage." This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
...
Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else

Honestly, is this even an argument? Is there anything of value in these statements of preference? I can't see what substance is being used to argue for the position, myself. What's wrong with teaching kids not to be bigots? What "undermining" is going to occur? Can someone please supply me with a complete rationale and argument here? Otherwise, all I am hearing these people say is that they don't like gay people. And that, my friends, is no basis for a constitutional amendment.

Florida's Amendment 2 (h/t: Reader Nemo):

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

SayNo2 is one opposition website that can use some support. For fairness sake the a support-amendment 2 site is here. Think these proponents have any game?

When you create a same-sex marriage, you are simultaneously creating a same-sex family. And now the question becomes what is the impact to children? Same sex marriage subjects children to a vast untested social experiment. The bottom line is that kids need a mom and a dad. An enormous body of research in peer reviewed journals over the past 30-40 years demonstrates that kids always do better when they are raised in a home with a married mother and father.

I don't even have to know the data to see the truck-width holes in this argument. First, it isn't an untested social experiment, I know several children being brought up by gay couples and there is no way that I know 'em all! Guess what, perfectly fine kids. Second, once we get done with the stupid anti-gay stigma promoted by....well, you all marriage defenders...we'll remove one minimally-plausible concern. Bigots are the problem here, not the same-sex couple/parents. With respect to the studies which suggest that the "married mother and father" making kids "do better"...ha! What's the comparison? How do kids do in singleton-parent families versus same-sex couple families?

Single parents do the best they can and should be supported and encouraged by a surrounding community of care. However, our public policy must always seek to ask what is in the best interest of children. And a loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of fatherless and motherless homes.

I'll take that as an admission of "less well".

This overlooks perhaps a more important real test of interest, anyway. I notice that there is nothing, nothing in these initiatives that prevents gay people from having children, in all of the various ways from prior opposite-sex relationships to sperm donors / surrogates to adoption. Nothing. So the real question is whether such a child would "do better" as the child of Gay-Americans who cannot marry or whether s/he would do better as the child of a married gay couple who are showered with all of a "loving and compassionate" society's appreciation for nuclear families?

Arizona is at it as well with Proposition 102 (h/t: Reader C Chu):

1. Marriage
SECTION 1. ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE.

One organization fighting Proposition 102 is here. The homophobic bigots may be found here. Interestingly this site doesn't even bother to put forth an argument! Here's the only thing that appears to have any content:

Everyone has the right to live as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage for all of society. Voting "yes" on Prop 102 secures the definition of marriage for future generations.

Funny, the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision did one hell of a big "redefinition", didn't it?

Another pro-Prop102 just plain brings the crazeee!

Your marriage may already be in trouble
In 2006 Arizona voters decided NO on a constitutional amendment which would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In fact, Prop 107 was just like our current Prop 102. But ever since that proposition failed to pass, we are beginning to understand the truly disasterous consequences of its failure.

It is estimated that, since 2006, approximately 20,000 heterosexual marriages have failed in Arizona due to inadequate protections from the possibility of activist judges ruling in favor of some future homosexual plaintiffs. State authorities fear that we may be on a slippery slope of failed heterosexual marriages and broken families if we don't take immediate action to pass Prop 102.

The threat from California
Additionally, the legality of gay marriage in California sent out powerful shockwaves of destructive gay energy throughout the country. Without an amendment to our constitution specifically barring homosexuals from obtaining marriage rights, this destructive force will continue to turn thousands of upright, decent straight couples into deranged, out-of-control gay perverts.

Stop the spread
New research from the Family Focus Forum (FFF) indicates that homosexuality may in fact be a communicable disease. In fact, many previously heterosexual men are now leaving their families for no apparent reason in order to persue careers in fashion design and hair styling. One has only to tune in to Bravo to see how such shows as Shear Genius or Project Runway are transforming popular culture toward the sin of homosexuality.

Am I being pwned? Ok, ok, this has to be a joke but it's pretty funny.

On to the interesting bit of data. Commenter Zeno had a post on California's Prop 8 to which Commenter The Ridger added a critical link.

The referenced page is a distillation from:

Mr. Spedale, an investment banker in New York City, and Mr. Eskridge, the John A. Garver professor of jurisprudence at Yale University, are coauthors of "Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence" (Oxford University Press, 2006).

Here's the summary of the data:

These are no longer hypothetical questions, because same-sex marriage is no longer just a theoretical possibility. Denmark was the first country to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples in 1989; and although the law used the name "registered partnership," straight as well as lesbian and gay Danes have generally equated these partnerships with marriage. Norway followed the Danish example in 1993, Sweden in 1995. While the actual title of "marriage" has been granted to gay couples elsewhere in the world only within the last five years, the Nordic countries have provided us with a rich source of information, and a 17-year history, as to what actually happens in society when gay and lesbian citizens marry.

Social conservatives suggest that legal recognition of same-sex couples has harmed society. Sen. Bill Frist has stated that "years of de facto same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has further weakened marriage"; similar claims have been made by Sens. John Cornyn, Rick Santorum, James Inhofe and Sam Brownback.

However, there 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.

Gotcha. Now admittedly I haven't read the book. So I'm assuming the data do actually support the authors' summary. It doesn't look too good for the anti-gay-marriage forces that pretend to have logical arguments, however. Okay, how about the snark? Do they bring that? Snark is important.

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. ...In short, the sky hasn't fallen.[ emphasis added - DM ]

I dunno, call me an out-of-touch scientist, but at this point isn't the onus on the homophobics to present some support for their claims about gay marriage? Perhaps before any dramatic constitutional steps are taken?