Galois

Read for Yourself

In my comment threads there has recently arisen references to Stanley Kurtz's writings on the state of marriage in Scandinavia and The Netherlands. I encourage anyone encountering these ideas for the first time to read firsthand what Kurtz has actually said and what others have said in return.

As for what Kurtz himself has written, a few comments can be found on MarriageDebate.com or National Review Online's The Corner, but the bulk of what he has said can be found in two articles in The Weekly Standard together with respective follow up replies to his critics on National Review Online. The first article was titled "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" (02/02/2004) with a follow up response to Andrew Sullivan, "Slipping Toward Scandinavia." The second article was titled "Going Dutch?" (5/31/2004) with a follow up response to M.V. Lee Badgett, "Unhealthy Half Truths."

I have responded to Kurtz's claims on a number of occasions on this blog collected into this category. Another great collection of responses was due to a number of authors at Amptoons collected under this heading. From the above two collections of posts you can find more responses for and against, but please don't miss this paper (pdf) by Professor Badgett.

Kurtz's biggest fear is that same-sex marriage is part of a movement that will lead to the equalization of marriage and cohabitation. Jonathan Rauch, though, has a brilliant piece in the latest issue of The New Republic [subscription required, but it's worth at least getting the trial subscription] as to how permitting same-sex marriage will strengthen the message that marriage is important, whereas prohibiting it will lead to a vast array of alternatives to marriage including a push for the legal and social equivalence of cohabitation to marriage. Rauch's article becomes particularly relevant after rereading Kurtz.

Lessons Learned

I should probably say something with regards to Stanley Kurtz's latest article in the Weekly Standard, Going Dutch?: Lessons from the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands.  And I will share a few observations, but many will probably sound familiar. 

The first thing that struck me about the article was the leading graphic showing the rate of out-of-wedlock birth in the Netherlands from 1970 to 2003.  It's a bar graph and the bars are blue until 1997, the year when a registered partnership bill passed, at which point the bars become red.  Before looking at the text, I would have thought the red bars were a projection based on the trend of the blue bars.  I was thus a little suprised that this was supposed to be evidence of an effect of registered partnerships.  It turns out that the red in the graph represents those years in which "the annual increase was two percentage points, double the average annual increase of the previous 15 years."  Based on the graph, which rounds rates to the nearest percent, I was curious as to why 1995 was not shaded red.  I was also curious as to which was the criterion, the annual increase of two percentage points, or an annual increase that was double the average of the previous 15 years.  So I decided to check Kurtz's source, the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics.  Those are available online for 1970-2002 (given as a rate per 1000 live births and shown here in a bar graph) and for 2003-2004 (you need to do the division yourself).  The first thing I noticed is that the criterion was certainly not an annual increase which was double the average annual increase of the past 15 years.  If it were, all the years 1974 through 1984 inclusive would be red and the years 1998, 2002, and 2003 would be blue.  Nor was the criterion actually an annual increase of two percentage points.  If it were, 1998, 1999, 2002, and 2003 would be blue.  The best I can figure, the criterion used was an annual increase of 1.5 percentage points or greater, that is an increase of two percentage points if we round after taking the difference. 

Now that I understood better what the graph was actually claiming, I could start to consider its significance.  Using the direct CBS numbers I noticed that the illegitimacy rate has risen every year since 1973.  So the claim must be that registered partnerships exacerbated this trend.  We do see from the numbers that while the rate of increase rose drastically during the 70's, the rate of increase stabilized during the 80's before rising drastically again during the 1993-1998 timeframe and  then stabilizing again.  Again let me emphasize I'm talking about the rate of increase.  Throughout this entire period the out-of-wedlock births as a percentage of total births rose.  (I should also point out that in the CBS numbers an out-of-wedlock birth is one where the mother was unmarried 307 days before the birth.)  So what might have been some of the causes of this acceleration during the time frame 1993 to 1998.  I don't know, but it wasn't registered partnerships and it certainly wasn't same-sex marriage.  The former didn't occur until the end of that time frame (it passed in 1997 and became law in 1998) and the latter not until after it.  It seems like Kurtz might realize this because he labels his graph as "Out-of-Wedlock Births and the Campaign for Same-Sex Marriage."  So it seems at times that Kurtz is arguing not that same-sex marriage will lead to an increase of out-of-wedlock birth, but rather the campaign for it will.  I don't know how he proposes to stop people from campaigning for same-sex marriage, but perhaps, as the subtitle of his article indicates, we can learn some lessons from the Netherlands. 

In his article Kurtz refers to the danger of a menu of relationship options.  Sure enough the Dutch do have four types of living/partnership arrangements recognized under family law.  And all four options are open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  It does seem natural to me that now that marriage has to compete with three other arrangements, less people will choose marriage.  So the question then becomes how do we avoid this "menu" of living arrangements.  One solution that seems obvious to me is to adopt same-sex marriage to begin with.  That would weaken the drive for civil unions, registered partnerships, legally recognized cohabitation, etc.  It wouldn't necessarily kill such movements entirely, but it does knock out a large argument for them.   In most cases these programs were designed as a way of helping same-sex couples who had no other means of legal protection for their families.  They were often opened up to opposite-sex couples as well for fear of discriminating against them.  Kurtz seems to think that same-sex marriage is itself offering another menu option.  Well yes, people could choose between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage, but people can already choose from a wide variety of spouses just within an opposite-sex marriage. The choice of spouse is not a threat to marriage.  It's the choice of alternative living arrangements with the same spouse.  Regardless of whom one chooses for a spouse, one should be expected to take on the same obligations.  The problem comes when one loses the incentives for taking on these obligations  by making the same benefits available under a different obligation scheme.

Kurtz also argues about the risk of separation of marriage and parenthood.  I don't believe there is a problem with claiming parenthood is not an essential component of marriage.  Marriages are recognized even when there is an understanding the couple won't be having children.  Marriages are recognized even when they end before any children are born.   We do not need to equate marriage with parenthood, and there is no harm in pointing out they are obviously not the same thing.  What is a legitimate concern is emphasizing the importance of marriage for raising children.  One does a great disservice by asking people to conflate this issue with its converse because when people see the obvious, that it is not necessary for married couples to raise children, they could end up rejecting out-of-hand valid arguments for how it is important for children to be raised by married couples.  Perhaps this is another lesson from the Netherlands.  Instead of arguing how married couples must have children, try focusing on how marriage helps those couples that do have children.  The answer is not that it gives the child a mother and a father.  A couple can cohabit and do that.  They can even live apart and do that.  What is probably meant instead is that marriage makes it more likely for the mother and father to stay together which is good for the child.  That seems like a natural argument and one can even explain how marriage helps to keep the couple together, and how that is good for the child.  But then one might ask, isn't it better for a child being raised by same-sex parents for those parents to stay together?  And couldn't marriage increase the chances of that couple remaining together?  Likewise there are many other ways in which marriage helps children, and one can explain to people in detail how it does this.  A focus on these arguments in the debate could--and hopefully would--have the effect of convincing people of the importance of getting and remaining married.  I believe such arguments would also lead more people to the conclusion that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry as well.  (This goes even for same-sex couples without children as, upon examination, many of the reasons marriage is good for children are also reasons it is good for the couple and the broader community.)

I am all for learning lessons from other countries with regards to the debate over same-sex marriage.  That we should not be having the debate in the first place, though, is not a very practical lesson.  The debate is here and it is unavoidable.  Instead we should be looking for lessons on how to conduct the debate and consider carefully the alternatives for dealing with the situation.  One lesson I would ask all to consider is that those who value marriage should explain in detail why marriage is so good, even if extolling its virtues might lead some to believe that same-sex couples should not be excluded from such an important institution.

Scandinavian Scare

Stanley Kurtz has claimed for awhile now to have proof that same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage by looking at what has happened in Scandinavia (where they passed marriage-like registered-partnerships in the late 80's to early 90's).  This brief post of mine works as a nice gateway to some of what has been written by Kurtz, Andrew Sullivan, and myself on this subject.  M.V. Lee Badget has a detailed rebuttal of Kurtz's arguments at Slate and I would encourage anyone with interest in the subject to read it in full.  Her analysis looks more closely at the demographic evidence, which is certainly important, but I think some of her most important points lie elsewhere, towards the end of the article. 

First of all there are some key differences between the United States and Scandinavia.  As she writes:

And all the conservative hand-wringing seems especially unnecessary when you consider the various incentives that encourage American heterosexual couples to marry. By marrying, U.S. couples obtain health-insurance coverage, pensions, and Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, in the United States we are required by law to be financially responsible for our spouses in bad times, since we don't have Scandinavian-style welfare programs to fall back on.

Whereas allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change any of these incentives, not allowing same-sex marriage has been causing a change.  For example, because same-sex couples are excluded from marriage many private employers have started offering health coverage and pension benefits to unmarried partners.  The number of such companies has been rising dramatically every year.  These programs are generally also available to opposite sex couples as well (often because of legal concerns about discriminating against such couples).  Without same-sex marriage these programs will continue to proliferate and the situation will become more like Scandinavia in this regard.

Badgett also responds to Kurtz's claim of mechanism.  He has said that same-sex marriage divides churches, and the more conservative churches that would speak out against SSM and against cohabitaton become less influential.  Now there is much more separation of Church and State in the U.S.  So issues about gays and homosexuality will not just disappear from the churches with an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  As Badgett notes:

In addition, American society already wrestles with the social tensions that Kurtz claims have occurred as a result of gay marriage in Scandinavia: deepening divisions over gay issues in churches, the increasing acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships in the media, and the occasional radical voice arguing for the abolition of marriage. Yet heterosexual couples keep getting married—more than 2 million of them every year.

Same-sex marriage did not cause these social tensions and banning it will not remove them.  Of course legalizing same-sex marriage will also not remove them.  Either way churches will have to deal with difficult issues like what is expected of its gay congregants?  Lifelong celibacy?  Closeted affairs?  Private commitment ceremonies? Commitment ceremonies with religious blessing?  Same-sex religious marriage even without the civil sanction?  Marriage to someone of the opposite sex?   In the political arena not allowing same-sex marriage  must lead to a second debate over what should be done to protect same-sex couples and their children.  If we are not going to have SSM, then what are we going to do?  Domestic partnerships?  If so, what should they look like?  How should they be treated in another state?  What should guide the courts in dealing with them?  Should they be open to opposite-sex couples?  I don't believe that a Constitutional Amendment is going to put gays back in the closet.  One way or another this issue must be faced.   

UPDATE (5/25):  Kurtz has a response to Badgett.  He writes:

Badgett's case is built on statistical sleight of hand. And his [sic] claim that "heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia" flies in the face of a broad scholarly consensus.

Kurtz makes some good points, but he still doesn't explain how requiring homosexuals to cohabit instead of marry will reinforce the benefits of marriage and the harms of cohabitation.  I just wrote more on the Dutch example here.  Oh and he seems to be wrong about  Badgett's gender. She is indeed  a woman.

Parents

At MarriageDebate.com, Ben Bateman has accused me of creating some confusion by my use of the word "parent".   I'll let him explain the problem....

Gabriel Rosenberg gives a syllogism that SSM proponents probably find compelling: "Parents ought to be married. Gays are parents. Therefore, gays ought to be married." The problem with this logic is that it uses the word 'parents' in two very different senses.

If that's a problem, it was one Kurtz created, not me.  If he only meant that "genetic parents" should be married, he should have stated that.  Without any sort of modifier why wouldn't somebody assume that "parents" include couples who adopt or who used sperm or egg donors to conceive?  More importantly, why shouldn't these parents be married as well?  Is Kurtz--or anyone else--really going to argue that it doesn't matter if parents are married unless they both share some genes with the children.  One of the main benefits Kurtz and others have argued marriage provides is keeping the couple together.  They point out that a  cohabiting couple is far more likely to break up.  Are we to believe that this family break-up is detrimental for children if and only if those children were the genetic offspring of the parents?   Marriage can also provide the security needed for a parent to make some career sacrifices in order to spend more time caring for the child.  Does anyone believe children don't benefit from this extra time unless those parents are "genetic"?  From all that marriage does to help with childrearing, I find it unbelievable to think Kurtz meant anything other than parents ought to be married.

When we say that parents ought to be married, we mean by 'parents' those two people who contributed a sperm and egg that came together to form a child. Procreation carries heavy moral consequences, and we hope that those who create children will accept the responsibility to raise and care for them. Those who marry are more likely than others to do a good job of raising the children they create.

I don't know who Mr. Bateman is including in the "we".  I have never heard anyone say a married couple using a donor should split up so that the egg and sperm contributors can marry.  Furthermore, I would think most people believe that parents who adopt children or who conceive children with the aid of donors should accept the responsibility to raise and care for them.  Does Mr. Bateman believe marriage will not help parents care for their children unless those parents are genetically connected to the children? 

The second premise in Rosenberg's argument uses the word 'parents' in an entirely different way. A same-sex couple cannot be parents in the genetic sense. They can play the role of parents by helping raise another couple's children, and one member of the gay couple might be one of the child's parents. Those in the gay couple could adopt another couple's child and acquire the legal equivalent of parenthood. But they aren't 'parents' in the sense of "parents ought to be married" because there is no danger of those two people producing children irresponsibly.

Parents who adopt are "role playing"?  They're just helping to raise another couple's children?  I know some parents who would strongly disagree.  I would think every parent--gay or straight--of an adopted child would be offended by these statements.  Furthermore, I thought the whole "threat" of same-sex marriage is that it will treat as "equal under the law" something which Mr. Bateman believes is inherently "unequal".  By the same logic doesn't it follow that one who believes that parents by adoption are "unequal", should similarly decry any law which makes such people "legally equivalent"?

Mr. Rosenberg would likely reply that genetics shouldn't matter any more. If someone is willing to commit himself to raising a child, then that person should be considered the child's parent regardless of any question of genetics. That's a nice moral ideal, but it doesn't square with actual human nature. In the real world, the vast majority of people are deeply interested in whether the child they're raising is genetically theirs. All things being equal, a child is better off raised by both his genetic parents. (And let's skip the silliness of demanding that all, and only, anti-SSM statements must be backed by mountains of social science. If you don't believe that genetics matter, re-read the story of Cinderella, or ask a redheaded stepchild.)

Although I am quite skeptical of the importance of genetic connection in determining how a parent will raise a child, that's not my reply.  My reply is, even if somehow you convinced me this was the case, so what?  The question here is whether marriage will benefit children being raised by "nongenetic" parents.  More precisely the question is "should parents be married or should only genetic parents be married?"  We're not debating some question of custody here, trying to figure out who should be raising the child.  We know who is raising the child.  We're trying to see if it makes any sense to prevent those parents from being married.  That being said, I can't stand silent while somebody once again equates a nongenetic parent with a stepparent, especially when the comparison is to a cruel or abusive stepparent.  A stepparent generally comes in after one parent has been raising the child for some time.  The stepparent did not decide to have the child, but rather decided to marry the parent of the child.    In these and so many other ways the case of a stepparent is quite different from the case of both parents at the outset deciding to have and raise a child together.    

Mr. Rosenberg has made it clear that he doesn't believe that marriage is intrinsically connected to procreation. But if he wants to persuade those who don't already agree with him, he should show that he understands their premises. There is a difference--increasingly in modern times--between those who produce children and those who raise them. Mr. Rosenberg is welcome to argue that the difference isn't important, or shouldn't be important, or whatever. But using the same word to describe both groups only generates confusion.

I'm afraid I don't understand the premises of Mr. Bateman.  I don't understand what would lead one to believe marriage is extemely important if the parents are "genetic", but of no value if the child was adopted or conceived with the aid of a donor.  I don't understand how allowing parents to marry undermines the message that marriage is also important for genetic parents.  I don't understand how allowing same-sex couples to marry sends the message that "genes don't matter", or why such a message, even if it were false, is in anyway relevant.  I don't understand how legally recognizing nongenetic parents as parents does no harm to this all important "genes matter" message, but recognizing the marriage of said parents destroys it.  I'm afraid I and almost all of society will--rightfully so--continue to use the word "parents" to refer to those with a legal and/or moral responsibility to raise and care for a child.  And I will continue to pray that all parents do so with love and kindness, and with the help and support of our society and its laws. 

News Flash: Gays are Parents, Too

At Daddy, Papa & Me, Trey reminds people that gays are, in fact, parents.  I can almost see him waving his arms back and forth screaming "Hey, over here!"  One would think this reminder would be unnecessary given the tens hundreds of thousands of gay parents out there, but unfortunatley far too many people seem to be forgetting or willfully ignoring this simple truth.  The immediate cause of Trey's response was this well reasoned argument by law professor Dale Carpenter as to why the "procreation argument" is entirely unpersuasive.  (Carpenter's column also appeared as guest commentary at  Dan Pinello's Notes from the Front Lines of the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage).  In fairness, Professor Carpenter did mention that gays can procreate, and was merely assuming arguendo that the method of procreation made some difference.  That being said, Trey's point is well taken that the substantial percentage of gay couples--and likely even larger percentage of gay couples who will marry--who parent get overlooked by the same people who argue how important marriage is for parenting! 

I don't know how to explain Stanely Kurtz's latest article which claims we must "draw the line" at preventing gay marriage in order to avoid severing the link between marriage and parenting.  Kurtz argues at length, yet fails to make even a single attempt to deal with the fact that gay parents are currently being denied the ability to marry.  It's stunning.  He even has a section entitled "Parenting means Marrying".  The section begins...

Here is what [Rev. Donald] Sensing misses: In America, parenthood still means marriage. Despite the problems of the underclass, and despite the prevalence of premarital cohabitation, the vast majority of Americans believe that parents ought to be married. True, divorce has seriously disrupted the connection between marriage and parenthood. Yet a comparison to Scandinavia and the rest of Europe immediately reveals that Americans who wish to become parents marry.

Do y'all see the same syllogism jumping out at you that I do?

• Parents ought to be married.
  
• Gays are parents.
  
• Therefore, gays ought to be married.
  

Let's return to Kurtz...

[Prof. Nancy] Polikoff would like nothing more than for American marriage to be replaced by the system of parental cohabitation that now dominates Scandinavia.

I don't know what Professor Polikoff wants, but it is Kurtz that is arguing for required parental cohabitation.  And as I noted here, even if one bought the unsubstantiated argument that Scandinavia's registered partnerships "severed the link" between marriage and parenting, the fact that couples in RP's were originally not allowed access to adoption or reproductive technology seems critical to the analysis.  In America, gays are allowed (and do) adopt and use reproductive technology but are denied access to marriage.  If Kurtz wants to strengthen the link between parenting and marriage, he should be pushing for the ability of gay couples to marry, not fighting it.

Cohabitation vs. Marriage

Stanley Kurtz claims to be opposed to the equalization of marriage and cohabitation.  In fact his stated harm of same-sex marriage (or civil unions) is that it will lead to more unmarried cohabitation and unmarried parenting.  Now I believe Kurtz completely failed to make this case, but I think it's safe to say that he feels unmarried cohabitation and unmarried parenting are bad for society.  Yet here we have couples, including parents, seeking to marry.  Kurtz, instead of helping them, is trying to stop them.  He is not only encouraging cohabitation over marriage, he is trying to mandate it.  It's going to be awfully hard to convince people that marriage is so much better than cohabitation when he also tries to hold this position.  It's going to be hard to convince people that raising children without marrying is such a problem, if he continues to try to withhold marriage from parents. 

Scandinavia and SSM (2 of 2): Causation

(Part 1 is here)

The second major criticism of Kurtz's Weekly Standard article was that he did not demonstrate that RP's actually caused any harm.  The criticism was that at best he established a correlation between acceptance of same-sex unions and the acceptance of unmarried cohabitation.  It seems to many critics, myself included, that other causes have caused both effects.  In fact, many of Kurtz's own statements seem to indicate this.  Still, Kurtz has argued that RP's have contributed to the acceptance of the latter.  This his how he explains it in his NRO response:

There [the WS article] I showed that gay marriage had split the Norwegian church and weakened the position of those clergy most likely to speak out against the trend toward unmarried parenthood among heterosexuals. In Norway, the clergy most accepting of gay marriage are the clergy least likely to criticize unmarried parenthood. With priests who see homosexuality as sinful effectively banned from churches, their criticisms of out-of-wedlock parenthood will be lost as well. Since traditional religion is one of the strongest barriers to out-of-wedlock births (conservative religious districts in Norway have by far the lowest rates), it's obvious that the flag movement will help remove a key counterforce to the decline of marriage. And it is very unlikely that conservative priests would have been so thoroughly and effectively banned if the issue were only unmarried heterosexual parenthood. It took the question of homosexuality to produce what amounts to a near total purge of conservative clergy from Nordland's churches.

The flag movement Kurtz refers to is the practice of flying rainbow flags outside churches signifying that nobody inside the church may speak negatively about homosexuality.  His argument thus seems to be: legal recognition of same-sex unions causes growing acceptance of homosexuality causes those who speak out against homosexuality (especially clergy) to be silenced (or at least ignored) causes the same people to have less success speaking out against other issues (like cohabitation) causes an increase in cohabitation causes harms like family dissolution.  It is a very indirect chain even if one accepted all of the links, which aren't all so clear.  For example, does legal recognition of same-sex unions cause acceptance of homosexuality or vice-versa?  More importantly why does one need to attack homosexuality in order to preach against cohabitation?  Can't one preach that "living in sin" is sinful without reference to homosexuality?  It is certainly possible to point to the harms of cohabitation (increased chance of dissolution), while encouraging all couples (same-sex included) to choose marriage and  reject cohabitation.  To argue that A is harmful because many people who oppose A also oppose B which is itself harmful is not a particularly strong argument against A.  It seems to be more of an argument that those people should spend their time opposing B directly.

Kurtz also mentions that, "The connection between gay marriage and unmarried parenthood extends to all sectors of Scandinavian society — religious or not. So when professors from NTNU use the example of gay marriage to argue that marriage is unnecessary for parenthood — they have just as much effect on their secular "congregations" as Lutheran clergy have on theirs."  He seems to see this as the same process above, except in a secular environment.  Actually it's a separate causal link.  The issue is not one of common opponents to two phenomena, but the existence of one being used in support of another.  Here the arguments goes: legal recognition of same-sex unions causes such unions to be used as an example of marriage without parenthood causes people to make arguments that marriage is unnecessary for parenthood caused people to believe said arguments causes people to have children without marrying.   Before going further with this analysis, I should point out that herein lies a major distinction between RP's (until recently) and SSM.  Under RP's initially a couple was not allowed to adopt  or have access to reproductive technologies.  Thus RP's were quite explicitly unions without reagards to parenthood. On the contrary one reason many SSM advocates, myself included, are so adamant about the rights of same-sex couples to marry is that in this country many same-sex couples are adopting and raising children.  We feel marriage would help protect those families in the same way they help protect families headed by opposite-sex parents.  It is the people that strive to deny these families the protection of marriage that are saying that marriage isn't important for parenting. 

Even if same-sex couples never had children, though, Kurtz's causal chain would be seriously flawed.  We can today, without SSM, point to marriages without kids.  Those marriages do not establish that marriage is unnecessary for parenthood.  They establish that parenthood is unnecessary for marriage.  One does not imply the other.  If people are incorrectly using and accepting such false logical arguments the solution is not to ban childless marriage but to speak out against the faulty logic.  If people start to believe that acceptance of SSM requires believing marriage has nothing to do with having children, then acceptance of SSM could lead to more children born out-of-wedlock.  It's unfair, though, for SSM oponents to make such false statements and then blame SSM advocates for the consequences.  Kurtz, and other opponents of SSM, set up this false dichotomy.  They claim marriage is either about the relationship between the adults, or it is about their children.  Why can't it be both?  In particular, family advocates should point out that the relationship between the adults has a significant impact on their children.  A more stable, committed relationship between their parents is likely to be better for the children.  I don't understand how this changes any if the parents are of the same-sex. 

Scandinavia and SSM (1 of 2): Registered Partnerships

In his latest column at NRO Kurtz replies to two of the key criticisms of his recent Weekly Stanard article on the effect of gay marriage in Scandinavian countries.   The first criticism was that he used Scandinavian "registered partnerships" to make the case against same-sex marriage.  This was especially disturbing in that he claims his article destroyed the case for SSM as put forth independently by Andrew Sullivan and William Eskridge, Jr.  Those two, though, have argued that "marriage-lite" arrangements could have a harmful influence on marriage and that traditionalists should actually favor "marriage" over other imitations.  I noted that this was especially true in the case of Eskridge who explicitly compared Vermont civil unions to Scandinavian registered partnerships and said such laws would do more harm than SSM.  The second criticism was that Kurtz failed to establish causation.  I will deal with that issue in the subsequent post. For now let us consider how Kurtz responded RP vs. SSM issue.

In his response Kurtz focuses on entirely on Sullivan.  This is natural, since Sullivan publicly criticized Kurtz's original article, and as far as I know, Eskridge did not.  Kurtz's response was that Sullivan himself referred to Danish RP's as "defacto gay marriage" and used a study by Darren Spedale of marriage in Denmark to make the case that SSM had a net benefit to marriage there.  If Sullivan can use results based on RP's to support SSM, it seems only fair to Kurtz that he should be able to use results based on RP's to discredit SSM.  It's a fair point and Sullivan responded to it claiming that the main point of his article was not the effect of SSM on the institution as a whole, but it's effect on same-sex couples.  If RP's helped such couples, it seems likely to him that SSM would only help those couples even more.

I was more interested in how Kurtz might respond to the claim that his article actually supports Eskridge's case.  I can only guess that Kurtz might use the fact that Eskridge also referred once to Spedale's study.  Kurtz states in the Weekly Standarda artcile, "Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the `hysteria and irresponsibility' of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage." I managed to find Eskridge's note from that legal journal.  The relevant quote is in volume 31, pages 660-661:

Second, the legal recognition of same-sex unions that is best supported by principles of justice and equality can, and perhaps usually does, have benign or good consequences. Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have given almost complete recognition to same-sex unions, without malign consequences: there are no reports, even from traditionalists in those countries, that different-sex families have been weakened or that unhealthy promiscuity or sexually transmitted diseases have become a problem. Indeed, the scanty evidence supports the opposite hypotheses thus far. Not only have same-sex couples been able to solidify their conception of family through registering as partners, but new family-forming opportunities have been offered for different-sex couples. [n48] The pro-family and anti-discrimination policies of these countries have contributed modestly to campaigns to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, most prominently AIDS. [n49]
Moreover, there is no evidence that legal recognition of same-sex unions has contributed to a decline in the institution of marriage. Reports from Denmark suggest that the opposite may be the case; in the ten years since same-sex couples have been able to register, the marriage rate for different-sex couples has been stable, and their divorce rate has declined. [n50] I am dubious that there is a causal link, for the same reasons I question opponents' confidence that same-sex marriage will ruin the institution, but the correlation between the opening up of marriage to same-sex couples and a (perhaps temporary) halt in the institution's erosion for different-sex couples ought to expose the element of hysteria and irresponsibility in opponents' predictions.

[n48] By the end of 1998, for example, 2,372 couples had registered under the Danish law and 5,217 under the Dutch law; 1,870 of the Dutch couples were different-sex.
[n49] See Benny Henriksson & Hasse Ytterberg, Sweden: The Power of the Moral(istic) Left, in AIDS in the Industrialized Democracies: Passions, Politics, and Policies 317, 321-22 (David L. Kirp & Ronald Bayer eds., 1992).
[n50] See Darren Spedale, Nordic Bliss: The Danish Experience with "Gay Marriage" (1999) (unpublished manuscript, copy on file with author).

[boldfaced added, italics in original]

That's right.  Eskridge specifically doubts a causal link.  He was not claiming that RP's would save the institution of marriage.  Nor did he claim that RP's were the equivalent of marriage.  He was only noting that it didn't make much sense to argue that legal recognition of same-sex couples would have a detrimental effect on marriage as a whole given the existing evidence.  It seems he even suspected that the halt to the erosion of marriage may be temporary.

Can one use evidence from Vermont's civil unions, Scandinavian registered partnerships, or even Canadian marriage to argue about the effect of same-sex marriage?  Sure.  One needs to be explain, though, why such results would likely carry over or why they likely wouldn't.  In order for someone to evaluate such a claim, they need to understand what the causal mechanism is.  The argument will only be persuasive if one agrees on how the effect was caused, and if one believes that the same mechanism would work in the alternate setting.  So now let us consider how Kurtz believes RP's caused the demise of marriage and we can then examine what effect the difference between RP's and SSM would have on that mechanism.  Those differences include adoption rights (which have only recently been chaning in Scandinavia) and of course the name.   

Kurtz Responds

Stanley Kurtz has responded to criticisms of his recent Weekly Standard article on same-sex marriage and Scandinavia.  OK, he was responding to Andrew Sullivan's criticisms and not my own.  In any case, his response is rather interesting and I hope to have a post or two about it up on this site by late tonight tomorrow. 

UPDATE (2/3):  My posts are now up.  (Part 1  Part 2).  Sullivan also has his own reply to Kurtz.

Kurtz on Marriage

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.