Beyond Marriage: Reply to Maggie / Jon Rauch

There's much in what Maggie says. Like some other SSM advocates, I had originally hoped that the SSM debate would not be followed by a polygamy debate, but clearly it has been. Some SSM advocates maintained that there was no support for polygamy, but that's proving to be wrong as well. As I said in this article, like it or not, we're going to have to debate polygamy in this country. There's no guarantee we'll get it right. We'll just have to do what democracies do, which is put reasoned arguments before the public and hope the best arguments prevail. There are many reasons why polygamy is bad social policy, and it is in no way morally entailed by or comparable to SSM. Here's some cause for optimism: when the country pays attention and thinks things through, it gets the right answer more often than not.

An interesting, if partly academic, argument is to what extent the SSM movement let the polygamy genie out of the bottle, and to what extent underlying social changes in views toward marriage--led by heterosexuals--let both genies out of their bottles. Maggie plumps for the former. I suspect the latter is closer to the truth. That said, it does appear that right now here's where we are: polygamy advocates are going to try to hitch a ride with SSM, and some or many SSM advocates (hardly all!) are disinclined to throw them out of the car.

If that's where we are, the relevant questions, I think, are these:

1) Would legalization of SSM advance or set back the cause of legal polygamy? The answer is not obvious. I argue in my book that the latter is at least as likely as the former. It's true that the public might interpret SSM as a cultural statement that "anything goes" (or "love makes a marriage"). But the culture might and, I hope, will interpret SSM as a statement that everyone should have the opportunity to marry, a position that polygamy militates against. Universalizing the opportunity to marry may (I hope will) put monogamy on more, not less, stable ground. Once the playing field is seen to be level (everyone can marry), polygamists will have a harder time explaining why they should be allowed to take multiple spouses while leaving others with none.

2) What happens if SSM is not legalized? This question get far less attention than it deserves. Not having SSM entails its own cascade of consequences, not a return to the status quo of 1990 or whenever. Given the very real claims of gay couples and their children on society's conscience, and the real social costs of leaving these couples and their kids without legal moorings of family, the alternative to SSM will be non-marriage benefits of various kinds. And those will not be restricted to gay couples. I'm guessing the form they'll take, over time, will be cohabitation benefits, which eliminate the legal line between marriage and non-marriage, and which are the direction Canada and much of Europe have gone. Those, of course, would be literally impossible to restrict to homosexuals, and virtually impossible to defend from polygamy/polyamory.

Society will only be able to discriminate in favor of marriage--as it should--if marriage is perceived as fair and inclusive (and is fair and inclusive). Not having SSM will, over time, both create a market for alternatives to marriage and grease the skids for them politically. I posted an example of that here.

Those two points are empirical. It's certainly true that many polygamy advocates and family-structure egalitarians are cheering for SSM because they believe it will help their cause. I'm eager to see what happens in Massachusetts and maybe one or two other states that legalize SSM. I doubt we'll see them move on toward polygamy. Massachusetts seems to be moving in the other direction, with some employers revoking non-marriage benefits now that SSM is available. But we'll see. Suppose I'm wrong. That brings up a third question, one of principle:

3) Should gay people be conscripted to bear the cost of preventing heterosexual polygamy? I don't believe in a constitutional right to SSM. But neither do I believe in depriving gay people of the prospect and reality of marriage in order to prevent heterosexuals from doing something dumb which they very easily could avoid doing.

This, too, is not a question of absolutes. If someone could persuade me that SSM would wreck the institution of marriage, I'd swallow hard and come out against it. I'd go for civil unions and do my utmost to limit them to gay couples. (And then I'd demand that gay Americans be given medals for their sacrifice. God knows, heterosexuals would never sacrifice so much for the institution of marriage. Golly, do I sound jaded?)

That said, here are two questions which I'd like to see debated among conservatives. Is it likely that civil unions would solve most of the practical problems of gay couples without redefining marriage in a way that destabilizes it? If so, should folks like Maggie positively favor CUs as preferable to both SSM and the unstable status quo? I'm not there myself, but I think the case is strengthening, and I think conservatives would get ahead of the game by considering it.

posted by Jon at 5:13 PM | Link |

Beyond Marriage: Maggie Gallagher Joins the Fray

Robby George argues the "Beyond Marriage" statement confirms that you can’t exclude polygamy 'in principle' as a form of marriage if you accept gay marriage. Jon Rauch responds that may be true, but why isn’t it good enough just to oppose polygamy in practice? Besides, Jon says 'children need a mom and a dad' doesn’t exclude polygamy anyway, in principle.

I think Jon is right here: polygamy is not currently excluded 'in principle' from our marriage system in the same way that, until about five minutes ago, everyone understood that two men simply could not marry. Whatever two guys (or gals) did together, it could not be marriage. Yet almost everyone recognized that polygamous marriages were a form of marriage, even if they felt they were a degraded and undesirable form, for a variety of reasons (some of which Jon lays out). Polygamy was banned, while gay marriage was impossible.

If this is true, what are the implications for the current question: will SSM lead to polygamy?

First, while I believe Jon and Dale are firmly opposed to polygamy, and that it is quite possible logically to support gay marriage and oppose polygamy, I think they overestimate the importance of this fact for the above question. First, it is clear that many of the same people and forces that are pushing for gay marriage support family diversity as their key value and yes, often covertly precisely because they think arguments made by people who think like Jon and Dale are more helpful at this point in history.

Here e.g. is how one legal eagle pushing for SSM put it to the July 27, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle, when asked about the Beyond Marriage statement:

". . .Legal Director Shannon Minter at San Francisco's National Center for Lesbian Rights, one organization behind the same-sex marriage push, said the statement was "very poorly timed" because equality of marriage rights must come before other forms of relationship recognition.

"Gay legal groups already agree with them and are doing the things they recommend for the most part," Minter said. "We would be in a much stronger position to support all families if we are treated equally."

This lawyer pushing for SSM sees gay marriage as a step in this evolution, and says it's not helpful to point that out at the current time. Here’s how another gay marriage supporter sees it:

Legitimizing gay and lesbian marriages would promote a democratic, pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States, helping to supplant the destructive sanctity of The Family with respect for diverse and vibrant families. . . . If we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, people might devise marriage and kinship patterns to serve diverse needs. . . . Two friends might decide to “marry” without basing their bond on erotic or romantic attachment. . . . Or, more radical still, perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages arranged to share resources, nurturance, and labor.

Judith Stacey, Gay and Lesbian Families: Queer Like Us, in All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century 117, 128-29 (Mary Ann Mason, Arlene Skolnick & Stephen D. Sugarman eds., Oxford U. Press 1998).

Now of course Judith Stacey and Sharon Minter and Robby George may all be wrong, but their case is more powerful than either Jon or Dale acknowledge--In part because neither Jon or Dale acknowledge (or perhaps I should say 'see') how enormously radical the move to gay marriage is for that institution.

Marriage has taken many different forms in history and across cultures. But until, about five minutes ago, the one virtually inviolable rule was 'the rule of opposites': To make a marriage you need (at least one each) husband and wife. The 'rule of two (and only two)' (as David Blankenhorn has pointed out), by contrast is much more the product of specific culture, more rare, and presumably much more easily ignored. A marriage system that reoccurs frequently in widely divers and disconnected cultures probably does so for some reason. Polygamy is a chronic human temptation.

Yet, as David Blankenhorn has put it, Jon and Dale are in the position of maintaining that you can overturn the one clear rule about marriage in our own and virtually all of human history 'the rule of opposites' and yet the 'rule of two' will mostly likely remain firm and unviolate.

Once you move to gay marriage, anything can happen: why strain at a gnat when you’ve swallowed a camel? (Okay, maybe “why strain at a German Shepherd when you’ve swallowed a camel, would be more appropriate).

As I listen to the teens defend their polygamous families (and the fact that its kids they are putting forward for the cameras) at next week’s pro-polygamy rally in Utah, it's hard to deny the gay marriage debate is responsible for the new way in which polygamy is being defended. Just as its quite astonishing to me, though Jon seems to find it old hat, to find that Cornel West and Rabbi Michael Lerner (of Tikkun) are now endorsing polygamy. This is quite new and quite extraordinary, and in various ways a result of the destabilizing effects of the gay marriage debate.

I’ve explained my own reasons for doubting SSM will lead to polygamy—I think it will lead instead to the 'separation of marriage and state' as the strong constituency for marriage in our society (mostly religious folk) join forces with the Left, which has always wanted to abolish marriage, to get the government out of the marriage business.

But that gay marriage has put polygamy into new play seems to be visibly true. I've debated marriage a long time without ever seeing one visible public defender of polygamy. Now we have a major statement, signed by mainstream liberal thinkers, suggesting this is now the Left’s consolidated position. This may well be an unintended consequence, and one that gay people, in their quest for equality, shouldnt be expected to let stop them, for reasons' Jon so passionately articulates.

But how I don't understand how you can propose the most radical possible change in the underlying rules of a key social institution (radical in the sense of being the most new in human history) and then appear shocked, shocked when people suggest this may have destabilizing consequences for the institution as a whole.

On the Web:

Beyond Marriage statement: Beyondmarriage.org

Robby George's first post: www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

Jon Rauch's first reply: www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31025.html

Robby George's second post: www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=373

Jon Rauch second reply: www.marriagedebate.com/2006/08/not-so-fast-mr.htm

Dale Carpenter's comments: volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_08_13-2006_08_19.shtml#1155831813
posted by maggie at 3:25 PM | Link |

401(k) tax break extended beyond spouses / Jon Rauch

Without knowing more, I can't say whether this change is good or bad policy. But it surely is an example of how not having gay marriage intensifies pressures to do away with preferences for marriage.

Tax Break Extended to All 401(k) Heirs

A benefit formerly just for spouses is made available to everyone, including gay partners.

Los Angeles Times, August 18, 2006

WASHINGTON — A little-noticed provision in a pension law signed Thursday by President Bush will for the first time allow anyone to inherit a 401(k) nest egg without immediately paying taxes on the windfall, a benefit that in the past was reserved for spouses.

Gay advocates and other observers described the measure as a significant shift in how the government treats domestic partners who are not married, even though the provision was not written specifically for same-sex couples.

"With this change, Congress is acknowledging that improvements can be made to our laws that address financial inequities and impediments that same-sex couples face," said James M. Delaplane Jr., an attorney and specialist on pension benefits. "There's no doubt about it."

posted by Jon at 3:01 PM | Link |

Beyond Gay Marriage: Dale Carpenter Joins the Fray

Dale Carpenter's take on the "Beyond Gay Marriage" debate, at Volokh.com:

". . .George, a prominent natural-law theorist and one of the best public speakers I've seen, understands the radical argument for gay marriage. It claims, as he notes, that "love makes a family" and that making any legal distinctions among people who love each other are unjustified. The love-makes-a-family ideology — which also marches behind the more individualistic "families of choice" banner — does indeed entail the recognition of many forms of relationships, including same-sex couples and polygamous/polyamorous groups, since all may love each other. George concludes that this love-makes-a-family premise "is central to any principled argument" for same-sex marriage.
George thus mistakes the most open-ended argument for gay marriage as the one necessary argument for gay marriage. This is a debater's ploy. One could do the same thing arguing against almost any position. For example, I could say that support for restrictions on abortion will lead to restrictions on the use of contraceptives and to the prohibition of abortion even in cases of rape or threat to the mother's life. After all, that is what many abortion opponents have said publicly and the logic of their opposition to abortion (that human sex is for reproduction) must necessarily be attributed to the whole anti-abortion cause. It is, we might say, "central to any principled argument" against abortion.

So while George understands the most open-ended argument for gay marriage — the "radical" one, as he and Rauch refer to it — it does not appear that he has taken the time to understand more careful and restrained arguments for gay marriage, like those advanced by Rauch himself. . ."

posted by maggie at 2:40 PM | Link |

More on Rally by Polygamists' Kids

From the Aug 10 Deseret Morning News, "Children of 'Plural Families' to Rally" to "Defend Their Lifestyle" in terms as American as apple pie:

They're making banners that say things like "Justice and Liberty For All," "Intolerance Hurts Kids" and "I Love ALL My Moms."

Hundreds of children from polygamous families plan to stage a rally next week to stand up for their families, their communities and their faiths.

"I hope that they'll see there's good people in happy families," said Maranda, an 18-year-old who lives in a plural family in the Salt Lake Valley. Like most of the teenagers involved in the rally, she declined to give her last name to protect her family.

The pro-polygamy group Principle Voices is organizing the Aug. 19 rally at the Salt Lake City-County building. It will feature mostly youth speakers.

"Our teenagers wanted to defend their lifestyle," rally organizer Anne Wilde told the Deseret Morning News on Wednesday. "Often they're perceived as the victims. They want to say no, they don't consider themselves the victims. They feel like this should be a free choice."

. . .Many children in polygamy say they have been harassed at public school and called derogatory names like "plyg." Some children have declined to participate out of fear of being publicly identified."I'd like to see us not have to feel like we're hiding something," Maranda said. "We're really doing what we believe is right. We're not hurting anyone."

Such a public statement is expected to draw attention, but Wilde said she hopes the youth rally leads to positive change for future generations of plural families.

"They do not want to be perceived as victims, as unhappy and controlled," she said. "They have their free choice as to whether or not they want to live it as adults. Many say 'I'll wait and see,' some say 'I hope to.' Maybe they'll say, 'It's not for me.' The important thing is they can choose for themselves."

posted by maggie at 2:23 PM | Link |

Old Study: College Girls Say Moms Don't Matter

Thanks to Josh Baker, I ran into this qualitative research project, interviewing 248 student at East Carolina University (80 percent white), published in "College Student Journal" in 2000. Note the much higher proportion of women than men committed, in principle, to androgyny:

Almost eighty percent (79%) of the respondents agreed that "it is perfectly OK for a woman to decide to have and to raise a child without a husband" with significantly more women (85%) than men (73%) in agreement. Other significant findings included that women were more likely (56%) than men (40%) to agree that parents are interchangeable- that children can develop just as well with either a single mother or a single father. Finally, women were less likely (26%) than men (48%) to believe that men are better disciplinarians of children than women

posted by maggie at 1:11 PM | Link |

New Study: In China, Shortage of Babies and Girls

From a press release from the British Medical Journal, describing the latest results of national survey data in China on fertility, sex ratios:

Since the start of the one child family policy in China, the total birth rate and preferred family size have decreased, and a gross imbalance in the sex ratio has emerged, finds a study in this week’s BMJ.

The one child family policy has been in force in China since 1979 and was intended as a short term measure. To examine the impact of this policy, researchers analysed data from the 2001 national family planning and reproductive health survey.

Data were obtained from 39,585 women aged 15-49. The total birth rate has dropped from 2.9 before the policy to 1.94 in women over 35 and 1.73 in women under 35.

Most women want small families: 35% would prefer one child, 57% preferred two, and only 5.8% more than two. The preferred number decreased with age and higher education, and was lower among women in urban areas.

The male to female ratio was 1.11 in 1980-9 but rose sharply to 1.23 in 1996-2001. The sex ratio for first births was higher in urban areas, where only one child is allowed, suggesting that some people select the sex of their child at first birth.

posted by maggie at 11:45 AM | Link |

EVANGELICALS AND CONTRACEPTION: Christine J. Gardner

With the recent approval by the FDA of the over-the-counter sale of Plan B, the "morning after" pill, there has been much discussion of where various groups of Americans come down on the issue of contraception. When we think about American attitudes toward a topic like this, we tend to assume that religious "red state" Americans line up on one side of a divide, with secular "blue state" Americans on the other. Perhaps, but only up to a point. American evangelicals, as it happens, are pro-contraception. A Harris Poll conducted online in September 2005 shows that evangelicals overwhelmingly support birth control (88%). ...

Protestants' acceptance of contraception has a relatively short history. The 1930 Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops was the first Christian church body to authorize the use of contraceptives within marriage, even as it condemned certain motives for using it, like "selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." ...

Still, many evangelicals portray abstinence not as obedience but as an investment in future great sex. For those who marry, the "my body, my choice" attitude contributes to a contraception culture that places fulfillment of personal desires ahead of God's desires.

Some evangelicals charge that the Pill has contributed to the moral breakdown of society; perhaps, but evangelicals' embrace of the contraception culture has not helped. It may have made Christianity sexier to potential adherents but diminished a public understanding of marriage in the process. For evangelicals, this may be a bitter pill to swallow.

more
posted by Eve at 5:56 AM | Link |

OFF-TOPIC REQUEST: Eve

Hello, all. Maggie's given me permission to post this bleg, even though it is not wildly related:

I am working on a piece for USA Today on traditionally religious parents whose children come out. (And yes, I hate the phrase "traditionally religious" as much as you do, so feel free to suggest something a) better and b) two words long. Basically I mean parents whose religion bars homosexual acts.) It will look at how different religious traditions respond to gay kids, and include personal experiences as well as more official stuff. For this piece, I'd really love to speak with people who have been on either side of that exchange--parents or children. (Or siblings? If you have a story or something to share, that would be helpful too.) Although the piece will be written from a Catholic perspective, I am interested in speaking with people no matter where their experiences have led them.

Practicalities: I plan to have a revised draft to my editor by 5 pm Wednesday at the latest. It's very unlikely that I will incorporate everyone I speak with into the piece.

To reach me, please email eve_tushnet@yahoo.com .

THANK YOU. Please feel free to link/quote this on your own blogs if you think it might be useful, though please do note my time constraint, so that people will know when it is too late to respond.
posted by Eve at 10:24 PM | Link |

SSM and the Fate of Religious Liberty

Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage? Both a video and transcript of the May 22 panel featuring Maggie Gallagher, Anthony Picarello, Jonathan Turley, Robin Fretwell Wilson, Matthew Spalding
posted by maggie at 8:55 PM | Link |

What Your Neighbors in Tennessee Think

About a lot of stuff. It's a big country:

Tennessee’s voters . . . .Eighty percent (80%) believe marriage is restricted to the union of a man and a woman; 68% believe the Bible is literally true; 51% identify their position on abortion as pro-life; and 77% say election ballots should be printed in English only.

posted by maggie at 3:58 PM | Link |

What 'Banning Gay Marriage' Really Means

And no, I'm not in favor of it:

"Saudi authorities arrested 20 young men after raiding a suspected gay wedding in the southern town of Jizan, a newspaper reported on Wednesday. . ."

posted by maggie at 3:37 PM | Link |

New Study: Why Sex is Such a Comedy

Or maybe a tragedy? From a BBC news account of a new German study in Human Nature on women and men's libido:

They found 60 percent of 30-year-old women wanted sex "often" at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50 percent, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20 percent.

In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80 percent, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.

posted by maggie at 1:16 PM | Link |

New Polygamy Script

. . .unfolding in Utah next week, according to Deseret News:

Pro-polygamy rally planned for next week

"Teenagers from Utah's polygamous communities plan to stage a rally next week to stand up for their families. . ."

posted by maggie at 12:58 PM | Link |

Beyond Gay Marriage

Ryan Anderson of the Withersoon Institute contributes to the debate over "Beyond Marriage" a statement signed by major gay rights leaders and scholars, in the current Weekly Standard online:

The vision described in "Beyond Gay Marriage" is not supported by the majority of Americans. Yet our cultural elites--wielding considerable political influence--disagree. Thus, it is imperative that every candidate for elected office declare if he supports the vision of family life set forth in "Beyond Gay Marriage"--polygamous and polyamorous "marriages" and the creation of children raised by multiple queer households--or the model defended in the Princeton Principles--one man and one woman coming together exclusively and permanently as husband and wife to become father and mother to any children their marital love may bring. This is the question at the heart of the modern marriage debate. And voters need to know where their elected officials stand.

posted by maggie at 9:14 AM | Link |

EU and Cross-National Divorces/Deutches Welles

If this German paper is to be believed about one out of six European divorces take place in "cross-national" marriages:

July 8, 2006

". . .Each year, up to 170,000 international couples file for divorce in the EU – representing 16 percent of all separations in Europe. In addition to their personal problems, the divorcing couple is also confronted with a myriad of practical and legal problems exacerbated by the lack of any common EU family law.

There are many widely varying legal systems and divorce procedures in the EU's member states. In Ireland, for example, couples must have a four-year separation period before they can divorce, whereas in Finland, a divorce can be obtained in six months. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:05 AM | Link |

New Study: Dual Earner Couples Stressed

Phyllis Moen, a U. of Minn. professor, presented new evidence at the American Sociological Association meetings in Montreal this week that dual-earner married couples are stressed. In only one out of six couples, does both the husband and wife say they have a high quality of life. (For some reason, the Science blog headlines this as showing 'nuclear families' are unhappy.)
posted by maggie at 9:00 AM | Link |

A CANADIAN WEB MOVIE IN FAVOR OF REOPENING THE SSM QUESTION?

that's what I think this is, but I can't actually view it because I lack computer-fu.

it's here

remember, I haven't seen it. I hope it is not horrible.
posted by Eve at 3:58 AM | Link |

"Not So Fast, Mr. George (2)" / Jon Rauch

[From Independent Gay Forum]

In his reply to my post, for which I thank him, Robert George fairly notes that many of the family radicals who signed "Beyond Marriage" favor SSM. Of course they do. But so do nearly all left-wing and queer-theory academics and activists, which is what these folks are. (With the exception of Chai Feldblum and a few others, they have not played prominent roles in the same-sex marriage fight. I mean, Cornel West? Gimme a break.) The important distinction is that SSM is only part of what these folks favor, and the rest is what they really care about. As the title of their manifesto proclaims, they are looking beyond same-sex marriage: they favor SSM, not as an end in itself, but as a way-station toward a post-marriage society in which all concepts of family enjoy equal status and marriage is irrelevant.

There's no denying that they speak for a prominent element of the gay-rights movement (not the gay marriage movement; there's a difference). I worry about their influence, as I do about that of socialized-medicine advocates and anti-globalists and gender-abolishers and other members of the ultra-egalitarian left, but I don't think they'll prevail, even within the gay universe, most of which is neither radical nor "queer."

There's a legitimate argument here about whether the culture will interpret gay marriage as "anything goes" or as "marriage goes." Actually, some of both may happen, but I expect the dominant vector to be reaffirmation of marriage's privileged status as the family structure of choice. Parents asking their gay kids, "So, you guys going to get married?", plus the longstanding social preference for the unique commitment of marriage (as expressed, for example, in corporate benefits reserved for married couples), plus the fact that most marrying gay couples marry precisely because they see marriage as a unique commitment — all these, I expect, will lead the culture to read SSM as a return to the values of marriage, not a further flight from them. The wind brings positive straws from Massachusetts, where a number of employers are revoking domestic-partner benefits now that SSM is legal.

In any case, it's hardly fair to saddle homosexuals with the burden of exclusion from marriage in hopes of preventing heterosexual folly. If straights insist on trashing marriage, it's not gays' job to stop them. Question: how many American heterosexuals would give up their own marriages to (maybe) forfend polygamy? Who would even consider asking them to do so? I'm often saddened by otherwise compassionate conservatives' willingness to think of gay people, in the SSM debate, as pawns to be manipulated for some larger social good. They must forgive us for declining to think of ourselves that way.

Regarding polygamy...OK, let me see if I get this. Polygamy destabilizes societies, is inconsistent with liberal democracy, shows pronounced inegalitarian and mysogynistic tendencies, is frivolous by comparison to SSM, has no logical connection to SSM, and indeed is logically antithetical to the principle of SSM properly understood (everyone should have the opportunity to marry)...these are not principled arguments? Whereas "one man plus one woman makes baby" is not just a principled barrier to polygamy, it is the only principled barrier?

The problem, which is immediately obvious, is that "one man plus one woman makes baby" is no kind of barrier to polygamy, either logical or practical. Logically, man-plus-woman-makes-baby is a biological fact, but one-plus-one-makes-marriage in no way follows from it. Men are perfectly happy to marry all the women they can make babies with, as they have been wont to do since the dawn of history. Given that most human cultures have been polygamous (and quite a few still are), and that presumably all of these cultures have been well aware that heterosexual couples make babies, it seems self-evident that the man-woman-baby argument has little or no deterrent effect on polygamy.

A point of honest disagreement with George is this: in my opinion, the reasons to oppose polygamy are instrumental, not metaphysical, and all the stronger for that. And they are the same reasons for favoring gay marriage. Society and (generally) individuals are better off when everyone can marry and most people do.

That disagreement aside, I wish George would reconsider his strategy of pooh-poohing all the arguments against polygamy (and polyamory) that don't also militate against SSM — which is to say, virtually all the arguments against polygamy. Surely we could agree that this strategy does monogamy no favors. As SSM and gay partnerships gain acceptance, conservatives will be stuck with their own arguments that any change to the boundaries of marriage entails every change. It will be harder for the public, sensible though it is, to hold the line with conservatives insisting there is no line to hold. Sometimes I wonder if, like the Col. Nicholson in "Bridge Over the River Kwai," slippery-slope conservatives are forgetting what they're supposed to be defending. (Hint: not polygamy.)

As for polyamory, if by that George means group marriage, it might be different in some ways from polygamy, but it's analytically similar: frivolous, logically antithetical to SSM, and, to judge by the last several thousand years of experience, likely to devolve in the vast majority cases into polygamy. As for fending off formal recognition of non-marital polyamory (e.g., group cohabitation benefits), gay marriage is the surest method of preventing that.

In any case, it's well to remember that all this polygamy/polyamory talk amounts to changing the subject. Gay people are asking only for what straight people currently have: the opportunity to marry someone we choose (not anyone or everyone we choose). When straights get the right to marry two people, their mother, a dog, or a toaster, gay people will want the same opportunity. But not before.

posted by Jon at 8:49 AM | Link |

Illinois State Marriage Amendment Fails to Make Ballot

The New York Times story on the Illinois marriage amendment:

Elections officials reviewed a sampling of more than 330,000 signatures on the referendum petition and said last month that there were not enough valid signatures. Illinois requires more than 95 percent of a sample’s signatures to be valid, but the sampling of the referendum petitions determined that 91 percent were valid.

“Unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat in federal court, it’s not going to be on the ballot,” said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay and lesbian rights group.

posted by maggie at 9:28 PM | Link |

New Study: Marriage Boosts Depressed Spouse's Mental Health

This study using NSFH data presented this week at the Montreal meetings of the American Sociological Association showed that depressed people who marry experience better mental health. The authors note the finding was a surprise, no doubt because they expected to be able tor eport that selection effects (depressed people marry less often) explain away the mental health advantage of married people. But note how the authors manage to spin this news as bad news for marriage anyway: only depressed people got happier when they married, because the others were happy already!

"'Our findings question the common assumption that marriage is always a good choice for all individuals,l said Adrianne Frech, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in sociology at Ohio State University. . .

'Those 'average' benefits of marriage may be largely limited to people who are depressed before they entered marriage,' Williams said. 'There may not be strong benefits for everyone.' Frech said they were surprised that depressed people in this study benefited the most from marriage.

'We actually found the opposite of what we expected,' Frech said. 'We thought depressed people would be less likely to benefit from marriage because the depression of one spouse can put a strain on the marriage and undermine marital quality.'

Indeed, the study confirmed Williams' previous research that found levels of marital quality and conflict were key in determining depression levels in individuals after marriage. As would be expected, people who report marriages that are high in quality and low in conflict are less likely to be depressed.

Also, the study found that depressed people who got married reported overall lower levels of marital quality than did individuals who were not depressed. But even so, depressed people still benefited more psychologically from marriage than did non-depressed people.

The results didn't show any differences between men and women in the links between marriage and depression.

Although the study didn't look at why depressed people benefit more from marriage, the researchers believe they may have more to gain.

'If you start out happy, you don't have as far to go,' Williams said. 'But also, depressed people may just be especially in need of the intimacy, the emotional closeness, and the social support that marriage can provide. Marriage may give depressed people a greater sense that they matter to someone, while people who weren't depressed prior to marriage may have always thought that way.'. . .

posted by maggie at 9:17 PM | Link |

The Power of Generativity

Mind-boggling! From an August 13 AP story, this thought about the power of generativity:

"It works the other way, too. Anybody who had children more than a few hundred years ago is likely to have millions of descendants today, quite a few of them famous.

Take King Edward III, who ruled England during the 14th century and had nine children who survived to adulthood. Among his documented descendants are presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor, both Roosevelts), authors (Jane Austen, Lord Byron, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Elizabeth Barrett Browning), generals (Robert E. Lee), scientists (Charles Darwin) and actors (Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, Brooke Shields). Some experts estimate that 80 percent of England's present population descends from Edward III.

A slight twist of fate could have prevented the existence of all of them. In 1312, the close adviser -- and probably lover -- of Edward II, Piers Gaveston, was murdered by a group of barons frustrated with their king's ineffectual rule. Later that year, the beleaguered king's eldest son, Edward III, was born.

Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312 -- a definite possibility at the time -- Edward III might never have been born. He wouldn't have produced the lines of descent that ultimately branched out to include all those presidents, writers and Hollywood stars.

Of course, the only reason we're talking about Edward III is that history remembers him. For every medieval monarch, there are countless long-dead individuals whose intrigues, peccadilloes and luck have steered the course of history simply by determining where, when and with whom they reproduced. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:14 AM | Link |

APA WON'T MEET IN VA: From the Washington Blade

The American Psychological Association will move its meetings out of Virginia because of the possible impact of the Affirmation of Marriage Act and a proposed gay marriage ban on its members and their domestic partners.

The APA announced July 21 that governance meetings scheduled to be held in Virginia in 2007 and 2008 will be moved to Washington, D.C.

"Some of our staff are gay and lesbian," said Clinton Anderson, staff liaison of the APA's Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Concerns office. "They expressed concerns that hospitals and emergency rooms might not honor powers of attorney. People felt unsafe in their lives about meeting in Virginia."

more
posted by Eve at 12:24 AM | Link |