Many factors change the view of marriage

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 27 January 2013

Does the spreading greater acceptance of same sex marriage suggest that marriage as an institution is “obsolete?”  It sounds contradictory to suggest such a thing.  Similar patterns, though, have been found in other areas where a majority group historically denied privileges it enjoys to a minority group.  For instance, as women made inroads into formerly male dominated occupations, research showed that men abandoned the same occupations that they once resisted women’s entry.  Similarly, whites abandon neighborhoods which then become integrated with minority residents.  In short, what sometimes looks like progress for minority groups may be a result of the majority group devaluing and abandoning what was previously vigorously defended and denied to the minority group.

Nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized same sex marriage.  Another 11 states have domestic partnership or civil union laws.  The rest (except New Mexico) have passed bans on same sex marriage.  There are initiatives in four more states to legalize either same sex marriage or civil unions and none currently to ban it.  The trend is undeniable.

The movement to find legal and institutional support for same sex marriage could be understood  to  validate the contemporary relevance of marriage in the US; however, research on marriage trends and attitudes (among presumably mostly heterosexual respondents) suggests something different.  In December 2011, Pew Charitable Trusts released a study, “Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married – A Record Low.” 

In 1960 72 percent of adult Americans were married; in 2010 only 51 percent were.   The report claims, if current trends continue, in a few years, less than half of American adults will be married.  America is not alone in these trends.  They are also found in other mature, post-industrial, advanced economies.  As American style individualism, especially consumer individualism spreads internationally, an institution perhaps increasingly viewed as at odds with individualism, might increasingly become irrelevant and to survive may have to change both legally and normatively.

In 1960, average age at first marriage was in the early 20s, now it is in the late 20s.  It is not likely that many wait for marriage to enjoy sex today as was more likely 50 years ago.  The impetuous and romantic teens and early 20 somethings of the 1960s have given way to a more mature and financially more independent set of partners marrying for the first time.

Two trends seem to be especially important.  The older age at first marriage, cited by Pew, and then another, cited in a study by Bowling Green University, “The Gray Divorce Revolution:  Rising Divorce Among Middle-aged and Older Adults, 1990-2009.”  While divorce rates have stabilized and even fallen, they have spiked among this age group.  These are marriages that have lasted 25+ years.  Qualitative research cited in the study indicates that many older couples who divorce simply have grown apart. “Life-long marriages are increasingly difficult to sustain in an era of individualism and lengthening life expectancies; older adults are more reluctant now to remain in empty shell marriages.”

In response to a question of whether marriage as an institution is obsolete, Pew found, that 39 percent said “yes.”  This compares to only 28 percent in the 1970s.  This view varied by education and age.  The more educated were less likely to see marriage as obsolete while those under 50, compared to those over fifty, were more likely to see marriage as obsolete, a difference of 10 percentage points.  Among the never married, 61 percent indicated they wanted to get married.  It does not appear that one’s view on the obsolescence of marriage affects the wish to marry.

Perhaps most telling is that 58 percent of unmarried parents and 62 percent of cohabiting parents agree that marriage is obsolete.  Marriage is our society’s primary mechanism for tying adult responsibility to children and clear majorities of unmarried parents respond that marriage is obsolete.  It would be interesting to see if heterosexuals in those states where same-sex marriage is legal differ in their views and experience of marriage and divorce from those in states who have banned same sex marriage.

For many years the cause of marriage equality, and backlashes to it, have played out.  The gay community (a minority community) organizes and pushes for access to an institution defended by the straight majority.  As victories mount for the cause of marriage equality, it may be those victories are aided because the straight community no longer views marriage the same, are devaluing it, thus less likely to defend its boundaries. 

America solidly divided on issue of gay marriage (response to a response)

A local reader of the Tribune Star sent me this (see below) in response to my essay on gay marriage. I found this essay interesting as the writer, Mr. Turek, decides to play amateur sociologist. Just for fun, I thought I would treat it as an assignment I received from a student and share my comments back to that student. My comments will be italics and in bold

Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad
Frank Turek
Monday, May 26, 2008


Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.

He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” This is contrary to most social history. The states' interest in marriage emerged in agricultural societies as wealth became based on land and less in "status." Indeed, poor people often didn't have to marry, it was a practice begun by the rich and more powerful in order to maintain an orderly transmission of property. Women always know who their children are, but men do not. In a situation where biological parternity cannot be ascertained, the notion of legitimate (children of legal wife) and illegitimate children (of mistress) are created. Property only flows to the legitimate children. But today, paternity is easy to ascertain. Even legitimate children are sometimes challenged by their "father." So, the importance of the marital relationship is diminished today by the primacy of biological relations. Marriage was far more about property than the 'best interests of children."
How so?

The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children. You should cite some research by family sociologists who already argue that marriage is more of a lifestyle choice than a normative obligation as it was in the past. This is not new. Many people marry with no thought of children. See marriages between people who are past child bearing age or who opt to remain childless. Europe is so depopulated with children, that some governments are looking to create incentives for people/couples to have children.

So what?

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy. This same outcome also occurs when children are legitimate but a divorce occurs later.
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. 39% was the rate before the acceptance of gay marriage? That is remarkably high. In the US, currenlty it is about 25% overall, much higher among some groups than others. What caused the original 39%? Couldn't be gay marriage, perhaps the original causes are still in effect?

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “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.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” In liberal Scandanavia, that is probably the case. Also the cradel to grave welfare state makes it much easier to have children without the economic advantage of marriage as is found in the US. By the way, is crime and all the other social ills also occuring in Norway. No, they are not. Anthropologist Kurtz's assertion is not evidence.
But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal. And where would this be? The other Scandanvian countries? Holland? What other countries? Those other countries also are what we could call post-industrial countries. Perhaps that has something to do with it. Indeed, many anthropologists and sociologist have argued that an industrial and post-industrial society are more similar than the agricultural societies that we are just emerging from. "Traditional" marriage is an agricultural society phenomenon. In hunting and gathering societies, marriages are much more fluid than in agricultural societies..again, that property thing.
You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!). Tsk, tsk...didn't I teach you anything in that research methods class. In order to even begin to claim causation, three criteria must be met: 1) correlation (which we have here); 2) temporal ordering, the cause must occur prior to the effect; and 3) ruling out of spurious relationships, in other words another cauase that might be controlling both phenomenon. Unfortunately, your assertion of causation faisl the temporal ordering criteria, because, as this charts shows, the divorce rate was rising overall in the US and in California well before the Family Law Act of 1970, signed into law in September 1969 by, of all people, Ronald Reagan. While "no fault divorce" might have accerlerated the rate, it did not cause the "problem" of an increasing divorce rate. Indeed, the rate, as the chart shows, had already almost doubled from its low in 1960. Something else was going on, which also suggests that the third criteria of ruling out a spurious relationhip is at work.






No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage. Or the attitudes and behaviors had already changed and law/policy changed to follow. The chart above suggests evidence supporting the alternative view, not the one asserted by Mr. Turek or Blackenhorn.
This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”

Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.

Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all? Marriage does tie adult responsiblity to children. But nothing stops, unless it be law, gay couples from adopting children.
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.


One could make this argument, but one does not have to be married to take the tax deduction for contributing to the raising of a child. So, the law, recognizes parenthood quite apart from the marital relationship. One could argue perhaps that should be changed, that one could only get their tax deductions and exemptions IF THEY WERE MARRIED, but I don't think you are trying to make that argument.

That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn. Except Mr. Blankenhorn and Mr. Turke are poor sociologists. The paper gets a C.


Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

America solidly divided on issue of gay marriage

Previously published in Terre Haute Tribune Star, 5/25/08

Finally, gay rights advocates and conservative and religious groups have something in common: a week both could describe as “the best of times, the worst of times.”

On May 7, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled “that the state’s ban on gay marriage makes it illegal for public universities and other entities of state government to provide domestic partner benefits to the partners of gay employees.” Stung/elated from that ruling, a week later, the California Supreme Court “struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage … in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, “Conservative and religious-affiliated groups denounced the decision and pledged to bring enough voters to the polls in November to overturn it. Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, called the decision “outrageous” and “nonsense.” Staver continues: “No matter how you stretch California’s Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn.” (Strange that a group with “Liberty” in its name denounces a ruling that increases personal liberty.)

Those displeased with the Michigan ruling sounded similar themes starting with the dissenting justices: Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh wrote, “it is a perversion of the amendment’s language to conclude that, by voluntarily offering the benefits at issue, a public employer recognizes a union similar to marriage.”

These contradictory rulings might suggest a deepening division in the country over the issue of “gay marriage” in particular and the civil rights of gays and lesbians in general. Is this another wedge issue for the United States similar to the way abortion has been for several decades?

I raise the example of abortion because, in many ways, pro-life activists stem from similar groups as do activists defending marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Surveys of public opinion, however, suggest that the status quo for abortion is likely to continue while the status quo for gay rights is likely to move toward greater acceptance and reduction in status discrimination.

Public opinion on abortion has changed little since the first surveys following the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. There are passionate minorities on both sides of the abortion divide. The majority, however, is muddled, stuck in the middle, trying to find the right balance. I see the U.S. as maintaining the right to choose but with restrictions, which is fitting given where public opinion has been on this issue for the last 35 years. People’s views on abortion do not vary much by gender or by age.

Public opinion on “gay rights” is different. The acceptance of gay people in all walks of life is increasing. In fact, about the only status gays are not overwhelmingly accepted as is “legally married.” The Gallup Organization has been surveying public opinion on these issues for decades. In 1977, 56 percent of adults responded “should” to: “In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?” Responding to the same question, 89 percent of adults responded “should” in a poll taken May 8-11, 2008.

Sizable majorities of Americans support legally protecting gays in contested areas of society. In another Gallup Poll, 68 percent of adults favored including sexual orientation in federal hate crimes legislation. Last year a CNN/Opinion Research Poll found that 79 percent of adults indicated that openly gay folks should be able to serve in the military. In the same poll, 57 percent said gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally adopt children.

However, between 51 percent and 63 percent opposed granting legal marriage to gays and lesbians. When the options of “legal marriage,” “civil union,” or “no legal recognition” are offered to respondents, 40 percent choose “no legal recognition.”

There is, however, a very meaningful demographic divide on the issue of legal recognition of gay marriage/civil unions: age. Younger people are more likely to support legal recognition of homosexual unions than are older people.

Typical of such patterns can be found in a CBS News Poll from 2004; 53 percent of people 65-plus favored “no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship compared to just 25 percent of 18-29 year olds. And there is no evidence that as one ages one’s opinion changes on this.

The full acceptance of gays and lesbians into civil society in the United States, including legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship, will eventually occur, despite the efforts of contemporary opponents.