Top 6 News - February 2, 2004
1-NEWS: KS court rejects Limon appeal
2-NEWS: MA Dem leaders vote for ssm resolution
3-NEWS: SSM bill introduced in VT
4-NEWS: WI introduces DOMA amendment
5-NEWS: UN grants DP benefits if home country allows it
6-OP-ED: Kurtz responds to Sullivan
_______________________________
1-NEWS: KS court rejects Limon appeal
Decision at:
www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2004/20040130/85898.htm
Kansas court upholds sentence in gay sex case
By MELODEE HALL BLOBAUM The Kansas City Star
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/News/news/7840195.htm
If Matthew R. Limon had sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl, he
would have been out of prison two years ago.
But Limon had sex with a 14-year-old boy in February 2000, a week after
he turned 18. Instead of getting a 15-month sentence, he was sent to
prison for more than 17 years.
On Friday, the Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Limon's argument that
the sentence violated his constitutional right to equal protection.
The ruling, which received national attention, was the second time the
appeals court upheld Limon's sentence in the Miami County case.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Kansas courts to reconsider the
case, a day after the high court's landmark ruling that overturned state
laws making gay sex between consenting adults a crime.
The Kansas appellate court's 2-1 decision Friday was applauded by state
Attorney General Phill Kline and criticized by gay rights advocates.
Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented
Limon in the appeal, said the opinion was deplorable.
"The primary significance of this case is that Matthew Limon is
continuing to serve extra time in prison because of his sexual
orientation," Tamara Lange said in a telephone interview from San
Francisco. "The case challenges a legal system in Kansas that punishes
gay teenagers far more severely than heterosexual teenagers."
Lange, with the ACLU Foundation's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said
she expected to appeal the ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Kline called the decision a broad victory.
"Not only did we win a victory with regard to the Legislature and their
authority in setting sentencing, but we won a broad victory in
protecting the institution of marriage as well as protecting laws which
serve to protect children from predatory sexual behavior," Kline said at
a news conference in Topeka.
The court rejected arguments that Kline said would have threatened the
definition of marriage in Kansas as being between one man and one woman.
In February 2000, Limon was living at a residential school for
developmentally disabled young people when he and another boy, who was
almost 15, had a sexual encounter.
At the heart of Limon's case was the state's so-called Romeo and Juliet
law, passed in 1999. The statute was designed to make sexual acts
between young people who are similar in age a less-serious crime than
similar acts involving teens and older adults. However, the law was
written to apply only when the child and offender are members of the
opposite sex.
Limon's attorney's argued that the Romeo and Juliet law
unconstitutionally discriminated against homosexuals, leaving Limon to
be charged with criminal sodomy, a more serious crime. Had he been
prosecuted on the less-serious charge, he would have faced a prison
sentence of 13 to 15 months because of two prior criminal sodomy
prosecutions when he was a juvenile.
The Kansas Court of Appeals denied Limon's appeal in February 2002,
basing the decision on a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bowers v.
Hardwick, which upheld laws against same-sex sodomy.
In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Bowers with its ruling
in Lawrence v. Texas. It struck down Texas' same-sex sodomy law and
similar laws in Kansas, Missouri and other states.
The next day, the Supreme Court accepted Limon's case and then sent it
back to the Kansas Court of Appeals for further consideration in light
of the Lawrence decision.
In Friday's majority opinion, Judge Henry W. Green Jr. wrote that
Limon's case was distinguishable from the Lawrence case because it
involved an adult and a child rather than two adults, and because it
made an equal-protection challenge to the law, rather than a due-process
challenge involving the right to liberty and privacy.
"The question we must address is whether the Legislature can punish
those adults who engage in heterosexual sodomy with a child less
severely than those adults who engage in homosexual sodomy with a child.
The answer is yes," Green wrote.
Further, Green wrote that the Romeo and Juliet law was designed to
discourage voluntary sexual behavior that deviates from traditional
sexual mores.
"Traditional sexual mores concerning marriage and procreation have been
important to the very survival of the human race," Green wrote.
Green and Judge Tom Malone, who wrote a concurring opinion, also
justified the distinction in punishment of heterosexual and homosexual
acts on the basis of health.
Malone wrote that "it is within the Legislature's prerogative" to
"protect children from increased health risks associated with homosexual
activity until they are old enough to be more certain of their choice."
Judge G. Joseph Pierron Jr. disagreed. In his dissenting opinion,
Pierron wrote that it was difficult to conclude that concern over the
spread of disease provides a rational basis for the sentencing
differences.
He termed "confusing" the majority opinion that when offenses result in
pregnancy, a shorter prison term allows the adult offender, usually a
man, to return to society and provide financial support for the child.
"The legislative testimony about the heterosexual applications of the
Romeo and Juliet law made no mention of the desirability of getting the
assailant involved in supporting any child who might be conceived," he
wrote. "And what has any of this to do, under the facts of this case,
with punishing unlawful oral sex, which not only "generally," but never
causes pregnancies?"
Pierron concluded that the purpose of the law was simply to punish
homosexuals more severely than heterosexuals for doing the same criminal
acts.
Limon, 21, has served three years and four months at the Ellsworth
Correctional Facility. His earliest possible release date would be
October 2014.
The Star's Jim Sullinger contributed to this report.
To reach Melodee Hall Blobaum, call (816) 234-7733 or send e-mail to
mblobaum@kcstar.com
_________________________________
2-NEWS: MA Dems vote for ssm
Mass. Democrats back gay marriage
By Raphael Lewis and James Vaznis, Globe Staff, 1/30/2004
http://www.boston.com/News/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/30/mass_democrats_back_gay_marriage/
LOWELL -- Massachusetts Democratic Party leaders last night backed a
resolution advocating unambiguous support for gay civil marriage,
ignoring deep divisions in the party's ranks.
The resolution, approved in a nonbinding vote that left the party's
official platform untouched, would appear to be only the second by a
state party in the nation. It was approved by a majority voice vote by
the approximately 200 members of the state committee present, less than
two weeks before the Legislature is scheduled to decide on a proposed
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
State Party Chairman Philip Johnston said the vote sends a clear message
to the nation that "we support protecting the rights of these
individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us."
"I think it's very important the party speak out on this issue," he said.
In an interview immediately after the vote, Tom Barbera, a state
committee member from Waltham, said: "Massachusetts is on record for
supporting full civil rights. To have the party behind this issue is a
blessing to me and every lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. It's a
historic day." In September, the state committee of the New York
Democratic Party passed a similar resolution. It was believed to be the
first time a state party nationally had taken such a position.
On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its landmark
ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to enter into civil marriages
under the state's constitution. Yesterday, gay rights advocates praised
the party for moving so swiftly on the issue, saying it would send an
important message to lawmakers as they consider the constitutional
amendment.
Members of the state committee unanimously passed another resolution
last night, opposing the constitutional amendment and any other attempt
to amend the constitution to discriminate against lesbian or gay families.
"It's very significant that they are saying that Democrats don't
discriminate," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts
Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Democrats shouldn't discriminate.
That doesn't mean that all Democrats have to personally like gay
marriage, but they should not discriminate.
"It's a helpful message to legislators, reminding them what the
Democratic Party stands for," she said. The Bay State Democratic Party
has held an official position in favor of Vermont-style civil unions and
has opposed any constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a
heterosexual union.The chief sponsor of that amendment is state
Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat, and one of the most
vociferous supporters of the legislation is House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran, also a Democrat. In addition, the front-runner in the race for
the Democratic presidential nomination is Massachusetts Senator John F.
Kerry, who has stopped short of endorsing gay marriage. Instead, Kerry
has supported gay civil unions and called for states to determine the
issue for themselves, rather than the federal government.
Johnston said yesterday that he doubted that Kerry's campaign would be
harmed by the resolution, but said it was too important an issue to let
campaign considerations affect it.
"He's running a national campaign, and I think every campaign for
president has to make its own decision," Johnston said. "But we feel
very strongly that this is a matter of basic civil rights for gay and
lesbian citizens, and the party should be supporting it."
A spokesman for Kerry could not be reached for comment on the party
vote. Some Democrats said that last night's vote on the resolution would
be important to those who cast it, but not necessarily to legislators or
even many of the party's registered voters.
In reality, some said, the resolution was symbolic.
"It's more important how people in the district feel," said Senator
Michael W. Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat, who said he would vote in favor
of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, so that voters could
decide the issue at the ballot box.
"The question is, what's more democratic than putting a question on the
ballot?" he said. "Isn't that democratic? That's what the Democrats
should be talking about."
Gay marriage opponents said the vote was not surprising, given the
generally liberal profile of the Democratic committee, which is made up
of directly elected members and others appointed to represent various
constituencies, such as labor, gays and lesbians, and African-Americans.
"It is surprising that the state committee has adopted a position that
is not held by the party's major presidential candidates, including
Senator Kerry," said a statement issued by Ronald A. Crews, spokesman
for the Coalition for Marriage, which opposes the SJC's ruling. "We
believe that, again, the Democratic State Committee acted out of step
from the voters of Massachusetts."
Statewide polls have generally suggested that a slim majority of
Massachusetts voters back same-sex marriage, although the most recent
surveys appear to reflect a state that is now almost evenly divided on
the issue.
The SJC's ruling is scheduled to go into effect in May, unless gay
marriage opponents can persuade the court to overturn or further stay
its decision.
The state Senate has asked the court for an advisory opinion on a bill
that would define marriage as a heterosexual union, but would create
civil unions that would offer same-sex couples all of the rights and
benefits available to married couples under Massachusetts law. The state
Republican Party has made no move to endorse gay marriage. The GOP
platform, last updated in 2002, states the party's support for all
citizens to be "equal before the law," but does not explicitly refer to
gay or lesbian couples.Dominick Ianno, executive director of the state
GOP, said the party stands behind Governor Mitt Romney, who has said he
favors bestowing a limited list of rights and benefits to same-sex
couples, but disapproves of Vermont-style civil unions and same-sex
civil marriage. He also supports the movement to amend the constitution
to define marriage as a heterosexual union. "We think the governor's got
the right approach to protect the definition of marriage as between a
man and a woman," Ianno said. "This issue is so important -- and it's
really not partisan -- that we should let the voters decide. This is not
a Democrat and a Republican issue."
______________________________________
3-NEWS: SSM bill introduced in VT
The Times-Argus, January 31, 2004
Box 707, Barre, VT, 05641
(Fax: 802-479-4032) (letters@timesargus.com )
(http://timesargus.nybor.com)
Bill would enable gays to marry
By Darren M. Allen, Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER - Partners to a civil union would be able to convert their
union to a marriage by filling out a simple application under the
provisions of a bill introduced in the Vermont House on Friday.
While the measure has little chance of becoming law, its key sponsor
said same-sex partnerships should be afforded the same level of legal
recognition as marriage.
"There are many instances of separate but not equal in the past,"
said Rep. David Zuckerman, a Burlington Progressive who has said
Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions law doesn't go far enough.
"And while I know this issue is going nowhere in either direction, I've
never been one to settle for partial accomplishment."
In addition to allowing civil union partners the option of marriage,
the bill would permit same-sex marriage outright, ending the need for
future civil unions. The bill would also require the state to recognize
same-sex marriages and civil unions conducted in other states and
countries.
The bill, Zuckerman said, is meant to counter a proposed amendment to
the state constitution that was introduced earlier this year in the
Senate. That amendment, sponsored chiefly by Sen. Mark Shepard,
R-Bennington, would ban same-sex marriage, affirm the "critical role of
the married family as a fundamental building block of a stable society"
and "help ensure that the democratic process is not overrun by judicial
activism."
The amendment - which, like Zuckerman's bill, has little chance of
advancing - says defining marriage as an institution between men and
women is necessary for children, who need to be raised in "a married
family with both a mother's and a father's care, reinforcing for men the
importance of fulfilling their responsibilities to children and to women
and by offering both male and female role models."
Civil unions were mandated by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999; they
were signed into law by former Gov. Howard Dean in 2000. Since the
law's passage, more than 5,800 same-sex couples have entered into the
agreements. Vermont's measure was the first in the country to give any
marriage benefits to gay and lesbian partnerships. In the last year, a
Canadian court ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry and
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered that state's
legislature to come up with same-sex marriage provisions within the next
couple of months.
Bishop Kenneth Angell, the head of the Catholic Diocese of Burlington
and one of Vermont's staunchest critics of same-sex marriage, said
Friday that the measure would further erode traditional marriage.
"One of the reasons we opposed civil unions in the first place was
because we knew they would primarily be used as a steppingstone to the
legalization of same-sex marriage," he said. "This bill does not
surprise us, therefore. Nor should it surprise anyone that the Catholic
Church remains in opposition to same-sex marriage."
The bishop, who worked actively to defeat civil unions, said he and
other Catholics "respect and cherish people of homosexual orientation,"
but that to recognize their unions would hurt "the sanctity of marriage
between one man and one woman."
To one of those married men, the bishop's argument didn't make sense.
"It's a justice issue," said Ken Wolvington, a Burlington man who has
been married - to his wife - for 53 years. "It is incredible that we
still deprive same-sex couples the legal rights associated with
marriage, which, after all, is a contract that should be a function of
the state. If you want to enter holy matrimony, you can still go to
church. But the state shouldn't deny these rights to anyone."
Contact Darren Allen at darren.allen@timesargus.com or
darren.allen@rutlandherald.com
________________________________________
4-NEWS: WI introduces DOMA amendment
GOP tries to bar gay marriages
10:54 PM 1/29/04
Phil Brinkman State government reporter Wisconsin State Journal
http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/66347.php
Republican lawmakers are again seeking to prevent gay and lesbian
marriages from becoming legal in Wisconsin, pushing for an amendment to
the state constitution to recognize only unions between one man and one
woman.
The move comes three months after Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed
legislation that would have done the same thing. By seeking to make the
provision part of the constitution, legislators can go around the
governor if the measure is approved in two successive sessions of the
Legislature and in a statewide referendum.
If approved, the amendment could go to voters as early as spring
2005.
A constitutional amendment also carries more weight than state law,
which already limits marriage to "a husband and wife."
Supporters say the change is needed to prevent "activist judges" from
ruling that the constitution's guarantee of equal rights for all trumps
state law and gives gays and lesbians the right to marry. The
Massachusetts high court made such a finding late last year.
"With just one or two Doyle appointments to the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, the Massachusetts decision will be the Wisconsin decision within
just a few years," said state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, one of
the amendment's authors.
Opponents vowed to fight the proposal, which they said seeks to
enshrine discrimination against gays and lesbians, who can't get married
now.
"Lesbian and gay couples are already denied the hundreds of rights
and responsibilities that come with civil marriage," said Tim O'Brien,
president of Action Wisconsin.
"Without civil marriage, our families are torn apart in the midst of
life's most tragic situations, like medical emergencies or a death in
the family," O'Brien said. "Legislators should acknowledge these
injustices and do something to help these families."
The amendment also would bar the state from recognizing unions with
an "identical or substantially similar" legal status to marriage.
The bill's sponsors say that wouldn't prohibit the state or local
governments from extending some benefits to same-sex couples, as do the
cities of Madison and Milwaukee and the Madison School District. But
the benefits can't be as great as those given married couples.
State Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, said the measure is aimed at
those who see marriage "as just a basketful of benefits as opposed to
something for raising a family in the healthiest, most beneficial way
for the children.
"You can say until you're blue in the face that folks who are same
sex can love their children and raise them well. But they cannot
possibly provide the balance of opposite sex parents."
Opponents say the provision treats gays and lesbians as second-class
citizens.
Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, and Senate Majority Leader
Mary Panzer, R-West Bend, both said they supported the measure but
declined to say whether they would schedule it for a vote before the
session ends March 11.
"It's going to have to go through the rigors of the committee
process," Panzer said. "I don't know if it's the right time or not."
_______________________________
5-NEWS: UN grants DP benefits if home country allows it
UN takes step towards recognizing gay partners
By Evelyn Leopold
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29149069.htm
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The United Nations took a cautious
step on Thursday in recognizing gay and unmarried heterosexual
partnerships among their employees by deciding to grant couples health
and other benefits if their home country allows it.
Although a relatively small number of staff would be affected, the
administrative order by Secretary-General Kofi Annan could lead to a
muddle, with some wondering why standards differ according to
nationalities and some General Assembly members questioning the entire
action, diplomats said.
But Susan Allee, a founding member of GLOBE, the Gay and Lesbian or
Bisexual Employees at the United Nations, said her group was "thrilled"
at the announcement.
"It is a step towards acknowledgment that there is great diversity in
the staff of the United Nations," said Allee, an American and an expert
on Lebanon in the U.N. peacekeeping department.
According to a bulletin Annan issued on Jan. 20 but not released until
Thursday, the United Nations would request permission from the country
of origin of the staff member "to confirm the existence and validity of
the domestic partnership contracted by the staff member under the law of
that country."
While the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada permit same-sex marriage,
throughout Scandinavia governments offer extensive nonmarital
partnership rights for gay and straight citizens, and less comprehensive
rights are offered in most Western European nations, Australia and New
Zealand.
In the United States, the federal government would be asked for a
ruling, and U.N. officials assumed the answer would be "no."
______________________________
6-OP-ED: Kurtz responds to Sullivan
February 02, 2004, 9:17 a.m.
Slipping Toward Scandinavia
Contra Andrew Sullivan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp
In "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
<http://24.104.35.12/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp>,"
I show that gay marriage has helped hasten the decline of marriage.
Andrew Sullivan dismisses my argument
<http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_01_25_di
sh_archive.html>, claiming I fail to show causality, and draw
impermissible inferences about gay marriage from Scandinavian registered
partnerships. Trouble is, when Sullivan thought he could prove that
marriage is not undermined by registered partnerships, he was happy to
argue causality, and eager to equate registered partnerships with gay
marriage. Now that we see that Scandinavian marriage is in a state of
collapse, Sullivan pretends that Scandinavia has no relevance to the
gay-marriage debate. In the meantime, Sullivan ignores one of the key
points of my piece - that Scandinavian gays themselves have rejected the
"conservative case" for gay marriage. To see why Sullivan is wrong,
let's take a look at marriage in Norway.
Consider "Church flies gay flag
<http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=672971>
," a story from the English-language edition of Aftenposten, Norway's
premiere newspaper. Two parish councils in northern Norway recently
voted to fly rainbow flags on their churches. The flags signal that no
one in these churches - priests included - may speak or preach against
homosexual behavior. The flags also welcome gay clergy, including those
who live in "registered partnerships" (i.e. de facto gay marriage).
Obviously, in the county of Nordland, where these two parishes are
located, gay marriage has achieved a high degree of acceptance. After
all, the Lutheran church has long led the opposition to gay marriage in
Norway. One of the few things distinguishing same-sex registered
partnerships from marriage is that they cannot be celebrated in the
Norwegian state church. And the ordination of clergy in registered gay
partnerships is the most divisive question in the church. So when two
parishes in the same county fly the rainbow flag to welcome partnered
gay clergy, gay marriage has obviously achieved an extraordinary degree
of popular acceptance.
That acceptance isn't total. Many are unhappy with the flags - and the
silencing of conservative congregants and priests that the flags
symbolize. And as the original news accounts make clear, these parish
councils are acting in defiance of their bishop. Clearly, though,
Nordland is a socially liberal county in which gay marriage has achieved
a high degree of acceptance. So what's the state of marriage in
Nordland?
Marriage in Nordland is in severe decline. In 2002, an extraordinary
82.27 percent of first-born children in Nordland were born
out-of-wedlock. A "mere" 67.29 percent of all children born in Nordland
in 2002 were born out-of-wedlock. As I explained in "The End of Marriage
in Scandinavia," many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabiting,
couples. Yet cohabiting couples in Scandinavia break up at two to three
times the rate of married couples. Since the Norwegian tendency to marry
after the second child is gradually giving way, it is likely that the
67-percent figure for all out-of-wedlock births will someday catch up to
the 82-percent figure for first-born out-of-wedlock births. At that
point, marriage in Nordland will be effectively dead.
Now consider the county of Nord-Troendelag, which is bordered by NTNU
(Norwegian University of Science and Technology). NTNU is where Kari
Moxnes and Kari Melby teach - two radical pro-gay marriage social
scientists. Nord-Troendelag is like Massachusetts - a socially liberal
state influenced by left-leaning institutions of higher learning. In
Nord-Troendelag in 2002, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for first-born
children was 83.27 percent. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for all
children was 66.85 percent. These rates are far higher than the rates
for Norway as a whole.
When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag - the Vermont and
Massachusetts of Norway - we are peering as far as we can into the
future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally
accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost
totally disappeared.
The story of the rainbow flag in Nordland embodies one of the causal
mechanisms I outlined in "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia." There 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 deeper point is that, contrary to the "conservative case," those who
favor gay marriage tend to favor or condone unmarried parenthood. 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.
Although Andrew Sullivan has challenged my causal analysis, the causal
mechanisms I've described here are of the same type social scientists
use to explain trends in marriage. Scholars agree that, when it comes to
the out-of-wedlock birthrate, ideas and values are key variables. They
establish causal links by noting broad correlations (like the low rate
of out-of-wedlock births in religiously conservative districts of
Norway), and then connecting those correlations to a cultural analysis.
If religious districts have low out-of-wedlock birthrates, and if clergy
preach against unmarried parenthood, it's reasonable to conclude that
religion contributes to low out-of-wedlock birthrates.
The causal mechanisms I've outlined are of just this sort. One district
bans clergy who oppose gay marriage (and these same clergy are the ones
who criticize unmarried parenthood). Another district lionizes leftist
professors who cite gay unions to prove that marriage has no intrinsic
connection to parenthood. If both districts have high out-of-wedlock
birthrates, it's reasonable to conclude that gay marriage contributes to
those rates. Andrew Sullivan can reject that sort of analysis if he
likes, but why does he accept the idea that secularism has an influence
on marriage? The causal mechanism in the case of secularism is no
different in kind than the mechanism I use in my own analysis. The truth
is, Sullivan doesn't object to the causal analysis. He objects to what
I've found.
Sullivan says there are too many independent variables to separate out
gay marriage as a cause of marital decline. I've just explained how gay
marriage can be separated out as a cause. But think about what Sullivan
is saying. Sullivan is really saying he'll never accept any claim that
gay marriage harms marriage. If the mere existence of prior causes of
marital decline makes it impossible to isolate new factors, then the
offer of state-by-state "experiments" in gay marriage is bogus. No
matter how bad things get - and no matter how clearly we show a cultural
connection between attitudes toward gay marriage and marital decline -
Sullivan will deny that gay marriage makes any contribution to the
problem.
Of course, when Sullivan thought he had statistical proof that
heterosexual marriage was doing well in post-gay marriage Scandinavia,
he was eager to play social scientist. Take a look at "Unveiled
<http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=20010813>," the
piece where Sullivan relies on an unpublished study by a kid barely out
of college to prove his "conservative case" for gay marriage. When
Sullivan thought he had proof that heterosexual marriage was not
undermined by gay marriage, he was more than happy to tout the
Scandinavian example. If it's really impossible to disentangle the
gay-marriage variable, why did Sullivan introduce data in the first
place?
But now, after I've exploded his use of the Spedale study, Sullivan
claims that Scandinavian registered partnerships "have no relevance" to
the gay marriage debate. Sullivan sure thought registered partnerships
had relevance to gay marriage in 2001. But after having seen the
collapse of marriage in Scandinavia, Sullivan says registered
partnerships "have no relevance" to marriage.
As for Sullivan's complaint about my use of the terms "de facto gay
marriage" or "gay marriage" for Scandinavian registered partnerships,
I've simply adopted Sullivan's own language. In "Unveiled," Sullivan
himself calls registered partnerships "de facto gay marriage" and "gay
marriage." And by the way, in "Unveiled," Sullivan used data on
Vermont's civil unions to draw conclusions about "gay marriage." Yet now
Sullivan is attacking me for doing exactly what he did three years ago.
Sullivan is wrong to say that Scandinavian registered partnerships are
open to heterosexuals. They're not. Sullivan wants to claim that
registered partnerships are a "marriage lite" that attracts large
numbers of heterosexuals and thus weaken conventional marriage. This is
how Sullivan wants to explain the decline of Scandinavian marriage. But
Scandinavian heterosexuals do not enter into registered partnerships, so
Sullivan's way of explaining the decline of marriage in Scandinavia is
wrong. (I see Sullivan has now corrected his error. But he's avoided
acknowledging that his mistake sinks his explanation for the link
between gay marriage and the decline of marriage in Scandinavia.)
While we're at it, where is Sullivan's causal warrant for the
"conservative case" for gay marriage? How can Sullivan proclaim with
such confidence that gay marriage will strengthen marriage when
(according to his new position, anyway) formal gay marriage has existed
only for a couple of years in the Netherlands, and no other evidence has
any bearing on the question? If Sullivan is such an empiricist, why
doesn't he express more uncertainty about the effects of gay marriage?
Given the fact that marriage is fast disappearing in the very places
most hospitable to gay marriage, you'd think Sullivan might at least
consider the possibility that his totally ungrounded predictions about
the future are wrong.
And note that "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" refutes the
"conservative case" for gay marriage on several matters that have
nothing to do with the causal question. Scandinavian gays have not taken
to monogamous marriage, and they openly reject the "conservative case"
for gay marriage. Sullivan says nothing in response to these points.
The mechanism by which gay marriage undermines marriage is easy to
grasp. We see it at work in Sullivan's own writings - including his
reply to me. Sullivan claims that "coupling - not procreation - is what
civil marriage now is." That is false. Just because we can find cases in
which infertile couples marry, Sullivan thinks he's proven that marriage
has nothing to do with parenthood. But marriage and parenthood are still
deeply linked. That is why Scandinavia's practice of unmarried
parenthood shocks us.
Scholars treat the connection between marriage and parenthood as
something that erodes gradually. That is why Sullivan is mistaken to say
that American marriage is about coupling, not procreation. The
connection between American marriage and parenting may have diminished,
but it is far from gone - as is quickly revealed by the European
comparison.
But every time Andrew Sullivan claims that marriage is about coupling,
not procreation, he helps weaken the connection between marriage and
parenting in America. The gay-marriage debate is eroding the cultural
connection between marriage and parenthood. Despite all the changes in
marriage since the Sixties, Americans have a long way to go before
marriage and parenthood are decoupled to the degree that they are now in
Nordland and Nord-Troendelag. There is more than enough scope for a new
factor to intervene and heighten that separation. This is exactly what
gay marriage has done in Scandinavia - and is doing right now in
America, especially through the work of Andrew Sullivan.
I don't mean to deny Sullivan the right to advocate for gay marriage. He
has every right. But the fact is, Andrew Sullivan himself is the causal
mechanism by which gay marriage undermines marriage. His persistent
belittling of the connection between marriage and parenthood and his
attempts to elevate infertile exceptions into the rule for a transformed
understanding of marriage are laying the cultural groundwork for a
Scandinavian-style disappearance of marriage in the United States.
I end with three questions for Andrew Sullivan. 1) Is it mere
coincidence that in districts of Norway where de facto gay marriage
(your phrase) is most accepted, marriage itself is virtually dead? 2) If
this is not pure coincidence, how would you explain the connection?
(Remember, your marriage-lite theory doesn't work.) 3) Would it be
possible for gay marriage to be an effect of the decline of marriage,
without also becoming a contributing cause?
