"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.
So begins this article by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale, which answers this article by the one and only Stanley Kurtz. I've criticized Kurtz' work before many times, as have many respected scholars, but no amount of criticism has slowed him down. It's telling that even Maggie Gallagher, who is very much opposed to gay marriage, doesn't seem to take his statistical arguments seriously. Basically, Kurtz has dedicated the last few years of his life to proving that after various countries in Europe began to recognize same-sex relationships formally, all hell broke loose.
Since the data in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia seems resistent to his attempts to morph them into an argument against gay marriage, Kurtz has focused lately on the Netherlands. In his most recent article, he writes:
The numbers for 2005 are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5 percentage points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip. That fact has created a serious problem for advocates of same-sex marriage.
But as Eskridge and Spedale point out, a bit of hsitorical context quickly robs this argument of its credibility:
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.
Given that the rate of out-of-wedlock births has been going up for 35 years, it is downright irrational to argue that policy changes to allow first gay civil partnerships (in 1997) and then actual gay marriages (in 2001) are the cause of the increase. Eskridge and Spedale also point out that the Netherlands actually has two sets of options for couples, both straight and gay - marriage or domestic partnership. This is unlike any other nation in the world. Is it any surprise, then, that some couples choose marriage while others choose domestic partnerships, while Kurtz' data only covers those who are in marriages and not partnerships?
Eskridge and Spedale point out just how silly Kurtz' causal arguments can get:
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 causal argument without a causal mechanism. Does he seriously want us to believe that the mere possibility that gays might be able to marry in the future will cause straight couples to stop having children? What could be more ridiculous than that? People consider lots of things when deciding to have children. Are we ready for this financially? Are we ready for this emotionally? Are we ready to take on the full burden of parenthood. Only the most deluded of people could possibly think to include "whether gay people can marry now or in the future" on the list of considerations when deciding whether to have a child.
Finally, Eskridge and Spedale point out how Kurtz' reasoning could also be applied to interracial marriages:
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.
Quite so. Kurtz is attemping to defend an argument that is illogical in the first place by misusing statistics.
- Log in to post comments
Does he seriously want us to believe that the mere possibility that gays might be able to marry in the future will cause straight couples to stop having children? What could be more ridiculous than that? People consider lots of things when deciding to have children. Are we ready for this financially? Are we ready for this emotionally? Are we ready to take on the full burden of parenthood. Only the most deluded of people could possibly think to include "whether gay people can marry now or in the future" on the list of considerations when deciding whether to have a child.
Awful lot of people like that in this country.
Hey, obesity and autism are on the rise in the U.S. Perhaps the gay marriage debate is causing those things too.
Matthew --
Parody keeps getting harder and harder:
http://positiveliberty.com/2004/05/fat-blame-a-homo.html
You're two full years behind the curve on that one, sad to say.
Doesn't it give you an enormous ego, Jason? Just think of all the things you are able to control by your every impulse - hurricanes, other people getting fat, the future of marriage, indeed of whole civilizations! That's the real allure of homosexuality, I think - the raw unbridled power.
Why is being born 'out of wedlock' considered a problem anyway? It's not as if the individual had any say in the circumstances of their birth. It would seem that only christians still wish to discriminate against 'bastards'. Given that the various christian denominations do not recognise the marriages of those outside their own church (e.g. the catholic church does not consider protestant marriages to be valid) it would seem that most children are considered bastards by one christian group or another.
Hm, wouldn't out-of-wedlock births be caused by heterosexual couples? It typically takes a man and a woman to conceive, in my experience.
atari24 wrote:
Well yes, but the idea here is that gay marriage is so powerfully dangerous that it changes the behavior of people who aren't even involved in them.
Wow, thank God gay marriage wasn't legalized when my grandparents were still alive -- their fifty-plus-year marriage would have lost its sanctity and fallen apart like a house of cards in a gale! I mean, their marriage stayed sacred through the Great Depression, WWII and three kids, but this is a whole new ball game! WHAT ARE THOSE COMMIE LIBRULS THINKING?!
Ed,
I think this is a misreading of his article. I think his point (for what it's worth) is that acceptance of the view that marriage is unrelated to biological parenthood not only makes gay marriage acceptable, but also makes straight marriage unnecessary. Thus, a rise in out-of-wedlock births (which is certainly bad for society) would make sense as a consequence of the gay marriage campaign because everyone who accepted that argument (and who saw no other purpose for marriage!) would be more likely to neglect the institution and end up having children out-of-wedlock. And this is precisely what has happened in many Scandinavian countries.
If I am reading him correctly, I think the argument is coherent; it's just the presuppositions that are bad. Namely, he has a profoundly poor view of marriage if he thinks the institution is done-for if people stop thinking of their children! Yes, out-of-wedlock children are bad for society, and yes, we ought to think about our children, but marriage is about far more than that!
Ken Brown wrote:
I agree that this is the argument he's making, and I suppose it meets some minimal standard for coherency. But it's absolutely illogical. There is no internal link between allowing gays to marry and marriage becoming less important to straight couples. The reasons why people marry are many and varied, but none of them have anything at all to do with whether gays are allowed to marry. Indeed, I would argue that the opposite is likely true - that allowing gays to marry reinforces the importance of marriage rather than undermines it. Both the benefits and the responsibilities that come with such a commitment are of such importance - and I really do agree that they are - that we should not put them off limits to anyone who wishes to undertake that commitment. For all of the reasons that marriage is important to families headed by straight people, it's also important to familes headed by gay people. There are hundreds of thousands of such families and there is nothing that the anti-gay crowd can do to stop that (much to the chagrin of some - not all - who take great delight in breaking up such families). The children in those families will undoubtedly be more secure, both emotionally and financially, if their parents are in committed relationships with all of the legal and financial protections that come with such commitments than if they are in transient, temporary relationships with partners coming in and out of the children's lives. That is true of the children of straight and gay parents alike. You don't reduce out of wedlock children by locking a few million parents out of the possibility of partaking in wedlock, for crying out loud.
Ken Brown wrote:
I think his point (for what it's worth) is that acceptance of the view that marriage is unrelated to biological parenthood not only makes gay marriage acceptable, but also makes straight marriage unnecessary.
Marriage was "unrelated to biological parenthood" before: some straight couples married without having kids, and some married and adopted kids. This has been happening for thousands of years -- as have out-of-wedlock births, for that matter. What does this have to do with gay marriage specifically? How does any of this "make straight marriage unnecessary?"
Thus, a rise in out-of-wedlock births (which is certainly bad for society) would make sense as a consequence of the gay marriage campaign because everyone who accepted that argument (and who saw no other purpose for marriage!) would be more likely to neglect the institution and end up having children out-of-wedlock.
Which "argument" are you talking about? If two people decide they want to get married and raise kids, why would legalized gay marriage change their thinking on this?
And this is precisely what has happened in many Scandinavian countries.
WHICH Scandanavian countries? Got any proof of this? I can't be sure of this, but I strongly suspect your non-sequiturs are making Baby Jesus cry.
Ed,
I think we agree a lot more than it sounds like. I would argue that the whole "gays are going to destroy marriage" meme is scapegoating - we have already been destroying marriage for decades by undermining its binding nature as a commitment (both socially and legally). Even if Kurtz' argument (that any separation between biological parenthood and legal marriage is bad for society) were correct (and it isn't), it would only follow in a society that had already accepted that marriage serves no other purpose than providing a stable environment for child-rearing. Thus, if there is a problem with marriage, the real blame should fall on straight people ignoring their commitments, not on gay people wanting to make them! I would think if people like Kurtz were serious about defending marriage as a legal institution, they would focus a lot more energy on no-fault divorce than on gay marriage.
But frankly, I don't see how the fact that the law treats marriage flippantly (in this or any other country) should have any bearing at all on whether I will take mine seriously.
Raging Bee,
You seem to have the idea that I agree with Kurtz. I don't at all, and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my first comment. My whole point was that the real problem with Kurtz' argument is that it assumes marriage is about nothing more than the rearing of one's biological children, which is clearly false.
I disagree on the no fault divorce argument. I'm all for no fault divorce. I really don't think that's where the problem lies. We shouldn't make it harder to get divorced, that just perpetuates bad relationships, which are often more destructive than divorce situations. The problem lies elsewhere, and I think it's a problem that government really cannot solve. The problem, I believe, lies in a culture that, by and large, raises people without the ability to make good choices about who they will marry (not universally, of course, but in most cases). Out of the dozens and dozens of married couples I know, only a small portion of them have a spouse they're really compatible with and happy with. I think most people put more thought into what kind of accessories they want on a car than what kind of traits they want in a spouse. Our culture continues to tell people that they're "supposed to be" married by a certain age and if they aren't, there must be something wrong with them. Marriage is just treated as some sort of societal obligation, something all normal people do, and so people just tend to fall into a rut with the first person who says yes. That's why I think we see so many first marriages fail, in particular, and why second marriages tend to be better - because it's not until someone is with the wrong person for a while that they realize that it actually matters who you marry, not just whether you marry.
Ken: sorry, the way you were phrasing the arguments left it a bit unclear as to what you yourself believed. Disregard previous fisking -- or forward it to someone who really needs it.
Its an old canard that gay marriage in Scandinavie has had an ill effect on marriage, and children born within wedlock.
Denmark was the first Scandinavian Country to allow gay civil unions, in 1989.
At http://www.dst.dk you can find statistics about marriage and children in Denmark.
I checked for the period 1960 to 2005.
In 1960 there were 78 weddings pr 1000 people, 1965 saw the highest number 88 pr 1000, in 1980 the number had fallen to 52, hitting a low of 48 in 1982. In 1990 the number was 61, last year there were 67 marriages pr 1000, so even though we marry less than for 45 years ago, the downward trend topped in the early 80's long before civil unions.
Now the ratio of divorces contra marriages was 19% in 1960, reaching 26% in 1970, and exploding to 41% in 1971. The frequency has been relatively stable since the, there is no trend in divorce/marriage ratio related to 1989.
Now in 1960 only 8% of all births was outside wedlock, this number was 11% in 1970, rising to 33% in 1980, topping out in the mid - late eighties at around 45-46%. The ratio has been relatively stable since 1987.
There is no doubt that marriage and births outside wedlock have change dramatically in denmark in the last 45 years, but none of the changes are corrolated to gay civil unions.
I have been told that Scandanavia in the early 90s underwent a restructuring of their tax systems in response to rising heathcare costs, which were burdening the welfare state.
Part of this restructuring was to lessen (or eliminate) the advantage that marriage has on the amount of income taxes to be paid.
Also, the formula for which benefits were calulated was changed to take into account only the household's income irrespective of the relationship between the people of the household.
I can't find anything right now to prove this, but I heard it from someone who lives in Norway.
If this is true, then the government has simply removed enough of the financial incentive to marriage that a lot couples just don't bother with the formality of marriage.
In Denmark one of the only tax benefits of marriage is that any unused basic deduction of one partner can be used by the other.
The taxation works in the following way:
Everyone has a basic deduction, of a few 1000 dollars a year. When the years taxes are calculated the basic deduction is first deducted from the years income.
So if you are a stay at home mom, your husband will get a few 1000$ larger deduction.
Another benefit is the fact that interest payments on loans can be distributed on will. Since the taxation is progressive, with the marginal rate at 64%, it can be a good idea that the partner with the highest salary gets the full deduction for interest payments.
A potentially big impact on marriage is the fact that we have a lot of people on welfare, and a married couples, or cohabiting couples gets less money than to single people on welfare. But this is just based on the fact that they are cohabiting.
The big impact on marriage was to a large degree in the 70's, where there was a general upheaval of the society.
In the eighties the stay at home mom all but disappeared, now only a small minority of women are stay at home.
Another factor is the fact that there is no stigma connected with a birth out of wedlock. Indeed many people wait to get marriaged until they have their first or second child. Using out of wedlock rates for firstborns is therefore a terrible measuring yard.
All the blogs are playing right into the Repubs hands.
They don't want to WIN this debate, they just want to have it.
As long as "the left" keeps arguing with them, they have won.
This has nothing to do with gay marriage per se, but everything to do with votes (you know this). The votes won't come when the Repubs "win" this debate. They come just because it's being debated.
By the number of posts I've seen in multiple blogs arguing with these people, I'd say they've already won. Call it defeatist. I'm calling it honest.
Give it up. The best thing anyone can do with this non-issue is to ignore it. Seriously.