If you didn't see it live on TV, you should see this transcript of Bill O'Reilly making a fool of himself while interviewing William Eskridge and Darren Spedale. They are the authors of a book called Gay Marriage for Better or For Worse: What We've Learned from the Evidence. O'Reilly claims to have gone over the statistics in the book "all afternoon", but then he draws the most absurd conclusion from them. Eskridge and Spedale show that in those nations that have gay marriage in one form or another, the state of traditional marriage actually improved after gay marriage became a legal reality.
Denmark (1989), Norway (1993) and Sweden (1995) have all recognized gay marriages or civil unions The statistics from those nations flatly contradict the claims of the religious right. For instance, Sen. John Cornyn claimed during debate over the FMA in 2004:
"The greatest effect [of same-sex marriage in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden was] on the society at large. Sad to say, there has been an enormous rise of family dissolution."
But Eskridge and Spedale show that the exact opposite is true. In each case, the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births had been rising immensely in the years before gays were allowed to marry and in each case that trend changed for the better after gays were allowed to marry. After reviewing those statistics "all afternoon", O'Reilly still engages in this bizarre exchange:
O'REILLY: OK. I think what we can draw...
I think what we can draw...
O'REILLY: I think we can draw this is what I'm drawing from all of your data. The gay marriage per say, the marriage of homosexuals, doesn't really impact on straight marriage for those who want a traditional union.
But it does, Mr. Spedale, it does lead to a more libertine or permissive society in the sense that marriage itself then is de-emphasized as we see in Sweden. And more and more people cohabitate.
SPEDALE: No. I think that's not true. I think exactly we saw the opposite. And that's why these statistics are so interesting. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in each of those countries after they passed their gay marriage type laws, their registered partnership records, the rates of heterosexual marriage went up per capita. The rates of heterosexual divorce went down.
O'REILLY: But they're still mighty low? I mean, look...
That they're still low is irrelevant. If you're going to claim that gay marriage leads to the de-emphasis of marriage, as O'Reilly does, then you have a very difficult time explaining why the heterosexual marriage rate per capita went down dramatically in the years before gay marriage, then went back up after gay marriage. This makes no sense unless you want to supply some sort of argument that gay marriage is such a powerful negative that it can affect straight marriages before it even exists - and that would be pretty idiotic, wouldn't it? Only an idiot or a fraud could "draw" from the data what O'Reilly claimed to draw from it. But remember, this is a "no spin zone". Right.
- Log in to post comments
No, no, Mr. Brayton. O'Reilly has it backwards. De-emphasis of marriage leads to gay marriage. Our highest goal is to make marriage as meaningless as possible in order to join the institution. I hope this alleviates any confusion.
O'Reilly can do 10,00 RPM before coffee. But we knew that.
Am I the only one who cringes when the words "per say" appear in a transcript? O, the curse of an old-fashioned liberal arts education . . .
And when the isuue of gay marriage gets to federal court, are the opponents going to argue that the court should take foreign law into consideration?
"But Eskridge and Spedale show that the exact opposite is true. In each case, the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births had been rising immensely in the years before gays were allowed to marry and in each case that trend changed for the better after gays were allowed to marry."
Frankly, I find this hard to believe. I would have strongly suspected that gay marriages would have had NO affect on hetero marriages and out of wedlock births. What could be the possible connections? Gay people would not likely affect out of wedlock births prior to being allowed to marry, and I don't see many married straight couples saying, "Honey, we must stay together, for the sake of the gay married people."
Unless I am misreading. Are they saying there really is no connection, but other factors like better sex education, and maybe stronger families due to better economies affected divorce and out of wedlock birth rates?
I am an absolute supporter of gay marriage, but I am having a hard time seeing how being allowed to marry would affect either hetero marriages (as the RR seems to obsess over), or out of wedlock births.
What's so hard to believe? Eskridge and Spedale are merely claiming that the increase in heterosexual marriage came after the institution of legal same-sex partnerships (none of the three countries named yet allow full same-sex marriage), not because of it. I'd be inclined to think that a common factor was at work: the pendulum was starting to swing back towards a recognition of the importance of formal rather than informal familial relationships. One effect of that swing was the increased desire of same-sex couples to have the formalized arrangements they had never had before, and another effect was the increased desire of opposite-sex couples to use the opportunities that had always been available to them.
Similarly, I don't think it's a coincidence that Massachusetts, the first US state to allow full same-sex marriage, is also the US state with the lowest divorce rate. They take marriage seriously there, and that means extending its rights and responsibilities to as many people as possible.
skip-
I don't think the authors are claiming a causal connection, only showing that the mere correlation of the two disproves the causal argument of the other side. I don't think passing gay marriage had any effect at all on those statistics, which are more likely to fluctuate based on any number of other causal variables. But the fact that they actually got better after gay marriage came in is enough to show that the causal argument of the other side is nonsense.
No, there is no causal connection. It's just that various anti-gay-marriage types have been claiming there is data from Scandanavia and the Netherlands to support the idea that gay unions undermine traditional marriage. Citing that the reality is otherwise is a nice refutation. Modus tollens rules!
What is really happening, of course, is since Europeans have stopped having children, the population is aging. Older people are much more likely to be in stable marriages, other things being equal. Also, I have had a number of european friends tell me that they would get married before having children. I think a large segment of the population is moving into now-or-never territory with regard to breeding, hence the uptick in the marriage stats (and in the increasing demand for recognition of same-sex couples).
I believe both Ed and kehrsam are correct - on their web site the authors do not seem to be making any casual connection between gay marriage/partnership rights and the stabilization in marriage rates - it appears to be a pendulum-swinging type of phenomenon. In fact, the authors state:
After decades of decline, marriage and family have made a modest comeback in Scandinavia after recognition of same-sex marriages.
So even the comeback has not been substantial, and IIRC from other examinations of the Scandanavian data, statistically even the "increases" in marriage rates are likely insignificant/
Hey guys,
That makes sense. Even as I was typing the comment as you can see I was coming to the realization they were not claiming any casual connection.
But I'm thinking of maybe going on the 700 Club and explaining to Pat Robertson that the reason I am 43 and still single is because of even the remote possibility of gay marriage in my state. Just the thought of gay people getting married has made it impossible for me to fall in love.
It's also made it difficult for me to pay my taxes on time, and set the clock on my VCR.... blasted homos!
Love,
Skip
...... And? So, you acknowledge that the alarmist destructive of society stuff is bunk, but geez, people might feel they can be themselves and make their own decisions, and we can't have that. Even if it harms exactly no one, we can't have people choosing their own way of life, or choosing to cohabitate.
But there could even be a modest causal connection, i.e., as more people get married, it gets more popular and fashionable to do so, for either gay or straight folks. How many couples have decided to tie the knot after attending friends' weddings, after all?
You guys are gay get a life