Stanley Kurtz has a new article in the Weekly Standard entitled "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The `conservative case' for same-sex marriage collapses.". In it he claims to have evidence to eviscerate the "conservative case" for same-sex marriage as advanced by Andrew Sullivan and William Eskridge, Jr. In truth, though, he makes their case for them. The whole premise of Kurtz's article is that marriage has been destroyed in Scandinavia by same-sex marriage. Well, actually he claims it has been destroyed by other causes which also led to same-sex marriage, but SSM didn't help reverse this trend. Well, actually no Scandinavian country has same-sex marriage, but they have "Registered Partnerships" which resemble marriages in some ways. Significantly, in Denmark these partnerships are open to same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Still, Kurtz somehow believes this shows how same-sex marriage will destroy the institution. In fact, though,he's making Eskridge's case for him. Almost four years ago Eskridge wrote a column at FindLaw arguing that Vermont's new civil unions and other "quasi-marriage" arrangements would end up weakening the institution of marriage. Eskridge wrote:
Ironically, however, experimental laws like Vermont's will undermine the institution of marriage -- much more so than simply legalizing same-sex marriage would. Such laws not only cut down on the total number of married couples by continuing to exclude same-sex couples, but they also encourage many different-sex couples to opt for unions similar to, but short of, marriage. In the long run, they threaten to make marriage obsolete....Accordingly, people who seriously value long-term, mutually committed relationships as the best situs of human flourishing and childrearing ought to be concerned that these new institutions make it easier for couples to enjoy many state benefits without as much state-supported obligation. These laws not only make marriage less special, but they lessen the difficulty of divorce. That should trouble the religious traditionalist and the gay marriage proponent alike. Thus, if traditionalists truly want to preserve marriage -- not just homophobia -- it's time for them to join forces with the gay-marriage activists in a common cause.
Andrew Sullivan has made a similar case (as far back as 1989) that domestic partnership arrangements will end up harming marriage. If Scandinavian partnership arrangements did indeed cause the destruction of marriage, as Kurtz claims, he is only strengthening the case of Sullivan and Eskridge, not undermining it.
Actually, there is very little in Kurtz's article to support even the claim that Registered Partnerships contributed to any decline in marriage in Scandinavia. Kurtz himself attributes the decline to many other factors and attitudes that he admits were already present before RP's, but he claims that RP's only reinforced these dangerous attitudes. Of course he also attributes the change to women working outside the home and social welfare. Apparently, though, same-sex marriage will just reinforce the idea that women should be allowed to work outside the home. Kurtz belives that the biggest problem in Scandinavia is couples who raise children without marrying. Yet, in the United States, Kurtz is trying to prevent same-sex couples raising children from marrying. Maybe that's the attitude that is truly harming marriage.
UPDATE (1/28): Andrew Sullivan now has a response to Kurtz posted. He points out that he has long argued that "marriage-lite" arrangements like they have in Scandinavia will weaken marriage. He also, correctly, points out that by no means did Kurtz establish that even RP's caused the declining marriage rate in Scandinavia.
UPDATE(2/2): I was mistaken about RP's being open to opposite-sex couples in Denmark. This page, is what misled me. The biggest difference (in addition to the name) betwen RP's and marriage seem to be rules concerning adoption. These rules vary even among the Scandinavian countries and have also changed recently. Kurtz now has a response to Sullivan available.
UPDATE(2/5): I have further comments on Kurtz's orginial article and his response starting here.
Comments