New Study: British Children Losing Their Religion

In the December 2006 issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, two scholars explore the proximate causes of the decline in religious affiliation, practice and belief in Great Britain. I ordered a copy. It's fascinating. Overall, religiosity among adults does not exhibit secular changes. What we are witnessing is a generational phenomenon: something is affecting children and adolescents to make each generation less religious than the last. So powerful are these forces (which the study does not attempt to identify) that a child with two religious parents has only a 50 percent chance of being religious. (A child with one religious parent has a 25 percent chance of being religious). The intergenerational transmission of religion is being cut off by sources outside the family.

Media, public schools are obvious sources. Less effective modes of parish life, schools is another possibility. Other explanations?

Abstract and citation below:

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Volume 45 (4) Page 567 - December 2006
Generations of Decline: Religious Change in 20th-Century Britain
ALASDAIR CROCKETT
DAVID VOAS

This article analyzes the best available evidence from the major British social surveys to describe and explain the continuous decline of religion throughout the 20th century. This decline is overwhelmingly generational in nature rather than a product of particular periods such as World War II or the 1960s. Measures of religious affiliation, regular attendance at worship, and religious belief show nearly identical rates of intergenerational decline. Decline has not been offset by any positive age effects in an aging society: Britons do not get more religious as they get older. The intergenerational decline follows clear patterns of transmission of parental religious characteristics to children. Two potential modulators of decline are identified and investigated: immigration of people who are more religious than the existing population and higher fertility rates among the religiously active population. Of these only the former appears of importance. The nonwhite ethnic minority immigrant population is far more religious than the white population; however, the rates of intergenerational decline (between immigrant parents and native-born children) are almost as high as for the white population, leading to an intergenerational convergence of levels of religiosity. Although ethnic minority populations tend to be more religious and have higher fertility rates, there is no differential fertility by religiosity among the population as a whole.

posted by maggie at 1:25 PM | Link | 3 comments

16,000 Single Mothers At War


The proper emotion to feel I suppose is gratitude and respect for their sacrifice. But what I actually feel is shame; not at these women, but at the idea of me and my country asking for this kind of sacrifice on the part of these children. If an enemy inflicted it, we'd consider it barbarous. Read it an weep:

WOMEN AFTER WAR A Single Mother's ChallengesYearning to Be Whole Again
Sergeant Sees the Light After Year of Emotional, Family Turmoil
By Donna St. George
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 24, 2006; Page A01

When they called her name, she could not move. Sgt. Leana Nishimura intended to walk up proudly, shake the dignitaries' hands and accept their honors for her service in Iraq-- a special coin, a lapel pin, a glass-encased U.S. flag.

But her son clung to her leg. He cried and held tight, she recalled. And so Nishimura stayed where she was, and the ceremony last summer went on without her. T.J. was 9, her oldest child, and although eight months had passed since she had returned from the war zone, he was still upset by anything that reminded him of her deployment.

He remembered the long separation. The faraway move to live with his grandmother. The months that went by without his mother's kisses or hugs, without her scrutiny of homework, her teasing humor, her familiar bedtime songs.

Nishimura was a single mother -- with no spouse to take over, to preserve her children's routines, to keep up the family apartment.

Of her three children, T.J. seemed to worry most. He sent letter after letter to the war zone, where she was a communications specialist, part of the Maryland National Guard.

"He went from having one parent to having no parents, basically," Nishimura said, reflecting, "People have said, 'Thank you so much for your sacrifice.' But it's the children who have had more of a sacrifice."nt by without his mother's kisses or hugs, without her scrutiny of homework, her teasing humor, her familiar bedtime songs.

Nishimura was a single mother -- with no spouse to take over, to preserve her children's routines, to keep up the family apartment.

Of her three children, T.J. seemed to worry most. He sent letter after letter to the war zone, where she was a communications specialist, part of the Maryland National Guard.

"He went from having one parent to having no parents, basically," Nishimura said, reflecting, "People have said, 'Thank you so much for your sacrifice.' But it's the children who have had more of a sacrifice." . . .

posted by maggie at 3:04 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Swedish Women Report the Most Work/Family Conflict

A study by Strandhl and Nordenmarkl, "The interference of paid work with household demands in different social policy contexts: perceived work–household conflict in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Hungary, and the Czech Republic," in the December 2006 issue of the British Journal of Sociology finds that Sweden the country with the most extensive work/family policies also has the least satisfied women.
posted by maggie at 12:17 PM | Link | 0 comments

South Africa Legislation Update

Thanks to the Defend Marriage blog, here is a link to the South African legislation on marriage and civil unions. The bill defines a “civil union” as “the voluntary union of two persons . . . which is solemnized and registered by way of either a marriage or a civil partnership.” The law applies to same- and opposite-sex couples. The marriage officer is to ask the parties “whether their civil union should be known as a marriage or a civil partnership” and, after solemnization, provide them a “registration certificate” indicating that they have entered into either a marriage or partnership. The section on “legal consequences” provides that “husband, wife or spouse in any other law, including the common law, includes a civil union partner.” The only exceptions are the “Marriage Act and Customary Marriages Act” that were the only laws allowing for solemnization of marriages to this point.

A marriage officer “may in writing inform the Minister that he or she objects on the ground of conscience, religion and belief to solemnising a civil union between persons of the same sex, whereupon that marriage officer shall not be compelled to solemnize such civil union.”
posted by William Duncan at 1:06 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Unmarried Births Rise Again

This story is reporting the latest government figures for 2005 show 37 percent of births are now out of wedlock, up form 36 percent in 2004--and despite a continuing drop in teen births.

UPDATE: the Associated Press account is here.
posted by maggie at 12:03 PM | Link | 2 comments

Israeli Marriage Recognition Decision

I’ve been unable to find a copy of the Israeli Supreme Court opinion referenced earlier online. The court’s website allows for searches for opinions here but the queries I’ve used have not turned up anything yet. It may just be that the text is not yet available but soon will be. Professor Art Leonard at NYU has a helpful description here that answers many questions about the decision.
posted by William Duncan at 6:28 PM | Link | 0 comments

Should We Constitutionalize Marriage?

The best way to get a NYT op ed, as every New York conservative knows, is to offer a "contrarian" opinion dear to the heart of the editorial board of the New York Times. They will run your piece in on Saturday (the day with the lowest readership) anyway. But at least they can say they do too open their page to conservatives!

A classic such op ed appeared this Saturday in the NYT by two conservatives who argued against state marriage amendments on procedural grounds: marriage should be left to state legislatures and not used to clutter up state constitutions.
Matthew J. Franck of NRO's Bench Memos, responds:

What Should Be Constitutionalized?
[Matthew J. Franck 11/21 08:23 AM]

The team of David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey, well-known to readers of NR and other conservative publications, had an uncharacteristically unpersuasive op-ed in Friday’s New York Times on the subject of the various marriage amendments added to state constitutions in the last few election cycles. If they had their way, amendments defining and restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a constitutional matter would not even have been proposed, let alone passed. Instead the leaders of these state-level efforts should have contented themselves with amendments simply removing the issue from the hands of judges, but leaving it to state legislatures to redefine marriage in future.


It is true that the sense of outrage that produced the recent spate of amendments is directed at the fact that judges have transparently legislated gay marriage into existence in the guise of deciding cases under their state constitutions. But it is only partly directed at that “who decides” feature of what some judges have presumed to do. It is also directed at what they’ve been doing—redefining what is arguably the core institution of our civilization in such a way as to damage it deeply, perhaps fatally. To deal with both the “who” and the “what” that confront us in recent judicial moves against the tradition of marriage, it is neither surprising nor inappropriate that drafters of amendments—and the voters who have approved those amendments—have seen fit to deal at one stroke with both questions.


Rivkin and Casey are right that “the question of who may marry and under what conditions has [always] been the province of the state legislatures.” But until very recently, no one imagined that “who may marry” would come to include same-sex couples, or that any public authority, judicial or legislative, would contemplate the resurrection of polygamy or the institution of polyamory. Constitutions were silent on questions of marriage as long as everything outside opposite-sex monogamy was unthinkable. Now the unthinkable has been thought, and people who are interested in preserving both tradition and democracy have legitimately concluded that constitutional silence on the substantive questions of marriage is no longer good enough. “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew,” said Lincoln. Would a constitution written in 2006 be thought to need a prohibition of slavery?


Rather sniffily, Rivkin and Casey refer to marriage-defining amendments as “cluttering state constitutions with the disposition of many difficult social issues”—as though the fifty state constitutions were, up to now, models of lean, concise charters of government without any “social issues” decisions embedded in them. This is something that anyone who has spent time perusing state constitutions would find it hard to credit. They’re a pretty cluttered bunch, those constitutions. And it is quite a depreciation of marriage’s importance to say that whether it shall be stretched to include pairings and groupings beyond opposite-sex couples is a mere “social issue” to be ranked with “adoption and child-welfare laws” or miscellaneous “criminal and other regulatory measures.”


Rivkin and Casey are pretty clear. They care a lot about judicial usurpation of legislative power, as do I and a lot of other supporters of marriage-defining amendments. What they don’t appear to care much about is the future of marriage. . .

CORRECTION: Matt Franck is kind enough to point out to me that the piece actually ran in Friday's New York Times. Oops.
posted by maggie at 12:39 PM | Link | 1 comments

Maybe They Should Get Pinned, Too?

This press release from Alliance Defense Fund ran across my desk. (They are apparently contesting the right of an Ohio state university to offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits). But what caught my eye was this sentence:

" Two of the requirements listed include a "long-term committed relationship" of at least six months and the sharing of a common residence."

A "long-term committed relationship" of "at least six months"? I guess that's what it takes these days. . .
posted by maggie at 12:30 PM | Link | 4 comments

Isreali Supreme Court Orders Recognition of Foreign Gay Marriages

Breaking news on court-ordered SSM from Isreal. (I'm told that only religious marriages performed in Isreal are recognized, so that many opposite sex couples go abroad to have civil marriages, which are then recognized in Isreal):

"In precedent-setting ruling court says state must recognize gay marriage

By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service

In a precedent-setting ruling, the High Court of Justice on Tuesday ruled that five gay couples wedded outside of Israel can be registered as married couples.

A sweeping majority of six justices to one ruled that the common-law marriages of five gay couples obtained in Toronto, Canada, can appear as married on the population registry. . .

posted by maggie at 10:46 AM | Link | 0 comments

Cohabitation in France

Story from the Washington Post on the shift from marriage to cohabitation:

"It was different for my parents," said Folet, who is model-thin and frequently flashes a warm smile that melts the sharp contours of her face. "You had to get married to have a child."... Titouh pondered the reasons that sociologists and other experts have offered for the decline of marriage: rejection of religion, a breakdown in society, a "me first" generation reluctant to make long-term commitments.

None of that is true, he said. He paused, then added slowly, "Well, for me, there is a rejection of religion."

Both Folet and Titouh credit their parents' generation for laying the foundation for the social shifts of the newer generation. Folet said her parents were under pressure from their parents not only to marry in the church but to have their children baptized as Catholic. Her parents were lukewarm: They baptized Folet but bucked tradition and never baptized her sister, born four years later.

"Now parents are evolving," Titouh said. "They're not forcing their children to get married." The couple said none of their parents has ever raised the question of marriage with them or made a comment about their unmarried status. Marriage is not an issue they discuss with each other. They don't necessarily oppose it; their feelings are much more ambivalent than that. "I don't see how marriage would bring any more to our union as a couple," Folet said. "It doesn't take away anything, it doesn't bring anything."

That is not to say there aren't occasional awkward social moments, especially during introductions to strangers.

"Saying, 'This is my friend or my companion,' doesn't say you've been together as long as we have," Titouh said. "So I say, 'This is my wife,' not to have problems." "When you say 'husband' and 'wife,' it's more concrete," Folet conceded. "More like a real couple, not a relationship in passing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001272.html
posted by Margaret Nell at 10:42 AM | Link | 0 comments

"Cute Butts and Housework?"/NYT

If said by a man (about what educated men are looking for in a wife) it would be intolerable. Said by a woman in a New York Times column (about what women want in a husband), it seems to reflect a profound incapability of absorbing and reconciling one's ideology with the evidence just presented which men at a less evolved time might have called "cute"; as the data presented in this column make clear, highly educated women with lots of choices aren't marrying good looking men who are handy with a mop. They are marrying nen who make a lot of money:

The Real Marriage Penalty
November 19, 2006
Idea Lab
The Real Marriage Penalty
By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL
Ny times

. . . Even as husbands and wives have moved closer together on measures of education and income, the divide between well-educated, well-paid couples and their less-privileged counterparts has widened, raising an awkward possibility: are we achieving more egalitarian marriages at the cost of a more egalitarian society? . . .

In particular, Americans are increasingly pairing off by education level, according to the sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare. In an article published last year in the journal Demography, they reported that the odds of a high-school graduate marrying someone with a college degree declined by 43 percent between 1940 and the late 1970s. In our current decade, the researchers wrote, the percentage of couples who are "educationally homogamous" — that is, share the same level of schooling — reached its highest point in 40 years. Assortative mating by income also seems to be on the rise. In a 2004 study of couples wed in the 1970s through the early 1990s, the researchers Megan Sweeney and Maria Cancian found an increasingly strong association between women’s wages before marriage and the occupational status and future earnings prospects of the men they married. . .

This last theory holds that disparities in wealth influence whom we marry, but there’s reason to think that our mating patterns could be producing economic inequality as well as reflecting it. A model constructed by the economists Raquel Fernández and Richard Rogerson, published in 2001 in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, led them to conclude that "increased marital sorting" — high earners marrying high earners and low earners marrying low earners — "will significantly increase income inequality." A 2003 analysis by Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, found that a rising correlation of husband-and-wife earnings accounted for 13 percent of the considerable growth in economic inequality between 1979 and 1996.

. . .Indeed, the sociologist Julie Press recently offered what she called 'a gynocentric theory of assortative mating,' moving the focus from what men now desire in a marriage partner to the evolving preferences of women. What would-be wives may be seeking now, she proposed in The Journal of Marriage and Family, is 'cute butts and housework' — that is, a man with an appealing physique and a willingness to wash dishes. Could this be a feminist slogan for our time?

posted by maggie at 11:10 PM | Link | 11 comments

A New Canadian "religious right"?

NYT, November 19, 2006
Gay Marriage Galvanizes Canada’s Right
posted by maggie at 11:04 PM | Link | 0 comments

Can Robots Replace Children?

Fred Hiatt of WaPo points out that Japan is shortly going to find out:

Japan Shrinks
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, November 20, 2006; Page A17

"Japan has embarked on a path no developed nation has ever followed -- of sustained and inexorable population decline.

Japan won't be alone, of course. Italy, Russia, South Korea and many others also will get smaller. The United States is the exception among advanced nations, and not only thanks to immigration; its overall birth rate is higher, too.

But Japan, which shrank by about 21,000 last year, is in the forefront, and so everyone else will be watching. Does population decline inevitably sap vitality and doom a country to genteel poverty? Or is there some way out?

"Japan is the leader, so it's important for Japan to show success," says Hitoshi Suzuki, a cheerful senior researcher at Daiwa Institute of Research, who pronounces himself "not so worried" -- so not worried, in fact, that last year he wrote "Population Decline is Not Something We Need to Fear."

But why not? For a population to hold steady, every woman must give birth on average to 2.1 children. When the birthrate drops below 1.5 and stays there for any time, it's almost impossible to recover, given the momentum of demographics. Below 1.3 is considered "lowest-low." China is at 1.7 and dropping. Japan last year clocked in at 1.25.

As a result, Japan's population, now about 128 million, is expected to fall to about 100 million by mid-century. Big deal, you might say. Wasn't Japan happy enough 50 years ago, when it blew through the 100 million mark on the way up?

Yes, but it was a very different 100 million then. In 1965 there were 25 million children in Japan, 67 million people of working age and 6 million senior citizens. In 2050 there will be 11 million children, 54 million potential workers and 36 million people 65 and over. No one knows whether such a society can maintain a spirit of innovation, or how its capitalists will adapt to a shrinking market. There will potentially be a lot more dependents for every productive worker.

Faced with this prospect, a country could choose to fight (raise the birthrate) or cope (prepare to manage the consequences). Japan gives lip service to the former. Since 1990 the government has sought to encourage more births, but the policy has had no impact. Today the portfolio of the minister in charge of spurring fertility seems to indicate a certain lack of governmental focus: She is minister of state for Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs, science and technology, innovation, gender equality and social affairs, and food safety.

. . .The trick will be "innovation," Abe said, and economic reform. In fact, robots and other ways to improve productivity are one of four possible routes to economic growth despite an aging population. The others would be making better use of women; immigration, which has increased slightly but remains unpopular in this ethnically cohesive country; and keeping the elderly working longer. . .

At least Japan will find out from a starting position of wealth. China, which imposed a one-child policy before it had developed economically, may get old before it gets rich. That will be a first, too.

posted by maggie at 9:43 PM | Link | 0 comments

Mass. Update: Romney Calls for Supreme Court to Permit Vote

A Hail Mary pass from Gov. Romney, but the underlying point should not be obscured. The people who profoundly object to gay marriage responded lawfully to the Supreme Court's decision. They have a right to expect the legislature will follow the state constitution's procedures for putting a constitutional amendment to a vote, which includes allowing an amendment that gets 25 percent of the vote in two successive years to be put on the ballot. For a majority to adjourn, play games, and refuse to let the minority vote is lawless. Do not pretend you are standing for civil rights in doing so. YOu are revelling in raw power:

Romney seeks to force gay marriage vote

Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that he would ask the Supreme Judicial Court to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, telling a boisterous crowd of several thousand at a State House rally that lawmakers are violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.
Conservative and religious groups gathered a record 170,000 signatures on a petition to put the proposed ban on same-sex marriages on the 2008 ballot, but the measure also requires the support of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to qualify for a statewide referendum. On Nov. 9, legislators voted 109 to 87 to go into recess rather than vote on the gay marriage ban, all but dooming its chances of appearing on the 2008 ballot.

"The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution," declared Romney, promising to send the 109 lawmakers a copy of the constitution and their oath of office to underscore his frustration. "Let us not see the state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it."

A spokesman for Romney said he would file a lawsuit with an SJC justice this week, urging the justice to direct Secretary of State William F. Galvin to place the issue on the state ballot anyway on the grounds that the Legislature is obstructing democracy.

State Police estimated the crowd at about 5,000 people, with gay marriage opponents significantly outnumbering supporters.

"On an issue as important as marriage, I think the people deserve a chance to vote," said Rich Sorcinelli , who traveled from West Springfield to pressure the Legislature to allow a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage. "Less than this has brought wars. This is what brings civil disobedience." . . .

posted by maggie at 2:42 PM | Link | 2 comments

Why Arizona?. . .the view from Daily Kos

Appraising Arizona
by Jim Burroway
Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:35:30 PM PST
This post originally appeared on Box Turtle Bulletin:

. . .Even though it may be early, LGBT and allies around the country are cheering this as a historic triumph. I imagine that gay-advocacy offices from coast to coast were looking over the data to see if this reversal can be repeated elsewhere. And we all hope that this represents a harbinger for things to come. At the very least, political scapegoating of gays and lesbians is not the reliable tactic it used to be.

But I'm afraid its too easy to look at Arizona's potential defeat of Proposition 107 and assume it's some sort of high-water mark for anti-gay extremists. What happened here was the result of a very unique set of circumstances, a combination of luck, organization, and Western common sense. Many factors lead to the proposition's apparent defeat, and as I see it these factors boil down to:

a hapless organization supporting the proposition,

a brilliant, well-researched and disciplined campaign against the proposition,

A "de-gayed" message that focused on the proposition's impact on heterosexual couples,

and the unique climate and circumstances of the LGBT community in Arizona.

Let's look at what happened in detail.

A Hapless Organization Supporting Prop 107

Prop 107 was authored and supported by the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), which often lobbies the state legislature on social conservative issues. Len Munsil was CAP's president when they proposed the measure and began ushering it through the process of getting it on the ballot. As the measure was going through the petitioning process he resigned to run for governor, and this prompted suspicions that Prop 107 was nothing but a ploy to energize the conservative base and propel him to the governor's office. (In fact, he was soundly defeated 63%-35%, losing in all seventeen counties)

When Len Munsil resigned, the task of ushering Prop 107 fell to his replacement, Cathi Herrod, who struggled to get the measure on the ballot. They had difficulties with lining up petition circulaters, difficulties with getting the minimum number of signatures, and dificulties getting the petitions gathered and turned in on time.

But in the end, CAP managed to get it done and their next task was to sell the measure to Arizona voters. And again, they ran into difficulties.

The truth is, Prop 107 never polled very well in Arizona, and CAP never mounted a wide-ranging campaign in response to the polls. They apparently assumed it would pass simply because Arizona is a very conservative state and, well, these measure always passed everywhere else.

CAP's message was unfocused and aimed largely at the choir. Most members of CAP appear to have an evangelical background, and their message was presented using the cultural language of evangelicals. Because they did little outreach outside of evangelical, fundamentalist, or Catholic circles, they were never able to connect with Arizona voters outside of their own little Amen-corner. The guest editorial columns they submitted to Arizona newspapers were often illogical, inconsistent, and poorly written. What's more, Arizona doesn't have much in the way of mega-churches, and except for CAP and the Alliance Defense Fund, there are very few organized anti-gay organizations. This means CAP had few allies to help carry their message to a larger audience.

A Brilliant, Well-Researched and Disciplined Campaign Against Prop 107

Soon after the anti-marriage onslaught of 2004, a small group of Arizona activists got together to discuss what to do if an anti-marriage amendment was proposed for Arizona. They didn't know when it would happen but they felt that it was only a matter of time. They began a post-mortem on campaigns in other states and identified several strengths and weaknesses. With that data, they began to formulate a strategy for responding to an amendment in Arizona. In other words, they didn't wait for Prop 107 to show up. They were strategizing before CAP began their efforts.

Arizona Together was the result of all that work, and their first big break came when CAP decided to go for the Cadillac of anti-marriage proposals, basing it on the Ohio amendment that passed in 2004. CAP's proposal read:

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage. [emphasis mine]

When Arizona Together saw they second half of the amendment's wording, they knew it was their best shot at defeating it. Based on what was happening in Ohio, Michigan, and other states to heterosexual couples because of their amendments, Arizona Together knew that the unintended consequences of banning gay marriages and anything similar to it would be their opening. And Arizona Together was ready, with polling data, market research, a superb fundraising campaign (almost all of their funding was raised in the state), a massive outreach strategy that went far outside the usual LGBT and progressive political organizations, and a clearly defined and disciplined message.

A "De-Gayed" Message

The disciplined message that Arizona Together sent out didn't rely on arguments about marriage equality or gay rights. Instead, they focused their arguments on what the ballot measure's passage would mean for straight people:

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, chair of the campaign to defeat Proposition 107, conceded that the strategy of the media campaign was to show straight couples who would lose their domestic partner benefits. That's because the initiative would not only have constitutionally barred gay marriage but also precluded governments from adopting policies that allow employees to add their domestic partners -- whether of the same or opposite sex -- to their health insurance or to gain any other benefits.

Sinema, who is bisexual, justified that by saying that out of an estimated 112,000 unmarried couples living together in Arizona, only about 18,000 are gay. She said the $2.1 million campaign was necessary to convince Arizona voters that this is more than just an issue affecting gays.

I attended a message training session last summer where this was hotly debated. Many were upset that the LGBT community was invisible in Arizona Together's campaign messages. Some felt that we were passing up a good opportunity to educate the public about LGBT issues and concerns. But Arizona Together representatives pointed out that supporters of gay marriage have an easy bumper sticker message with "one man and one woman", while our issues are too complex to be told in the short span of a campaign season.

They also had focus-grouped research that said that people vote according to their own personal concerns and priorities, and less so from an altruistic sense of helping others. When messages about equality and fairness were put before focus groups, the messages fell flat. But when concrete examples were presented about what happened to straight couples in Ohio and elsewhere, they sat up and took notice.

For example, Arizona Together pointed out that Arizona is a retiree haven. And many of these retirees are widows and widowers who meet, fall in love and move in together. But they often don't marry because pension plans often force a spouse to give up his or her pension upon remarriage. With Prop 107, they had a lot to lose, especially those who take advantage of Tucson's domestic partner registry which makes city services and fees based on marriage status available to domestic partners. For senior on fixed incomes this can be important. Also, Tucson's domestic partner registry guaranteed hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights. This too would have disappeared with Prop 107 along with the registry.

This message seems to have taken root among Arizona's retirees. Older Americans tend to be very strongly supportive of same-sex marriage bans, but according to exit poll results posted at CNN, 45% of Arizona's voters aged sixty-five or older voted against Prop 107. This compares to only 35% in Virginia and 29% in Wisconsin who voted against their marriage amendments.

So, while it may be a great victory if the amendment go down in defeat, it would be a terrible mistake to take it as a victory for the LGBT community. It wasn't. Prop 107 was failed or nearly failed because of what it would do to unmarried heterosexual couples. Gays and lesbians were largely invisible in the debate.

The Unique Climate and Circumstances of the LGBT community in Arizona

Arizona is a classically western state which famously values the idea of rugged individualism. Arizonans, while deeply conservative, prefer their governments small, their freedoms large, and their neighbor's noses very far away. Mr. Conservative himself, Barry Goldwater, was a supporter of gay rights. Arizona's conservatism often has a distinctly libertarian feel.

Arizona's gay community largely fits in well with that spirit. Phoenix and Tucson both have very large and active gay communities, but neither city has much of a "gayborhood." In Phoenix, most gay businesses are scattered around the north-central part of the city, but the concentration of LGBT residents in that area is quite low, especially compared to "gayborhoods" in most other cities. Tucson has no recognizable gay neighborhood at all; its gay citizens are spread pretty evenly throughout the city.

What this means is that while Arizona is about average in terms of the proportion of gay people, almost all of its LGBT citizens live among straight neighbors. This means that Arizonans in general are more likely to know someone who is gay than citizens in many other states.

Think about it: if the bulk of Arizona's gays lived in just a few neighborhoods, if there were Arizona Castros, WeHos and Chelseas, then that means that there would be fewer straight people with constant casual contact with the nice gay couple down the street. This geographic integration, I think, is an important part of why Prop 107 failed. An awful lot of straight Arizonans know their gay neighbors, and they are apparently reluctant to vote on something that would be harmful to their neighbors.

Conclusion

It was a great thing that Arizona has apparently defeated Prop 107. If the result doesn't hold, then its passage is likely to be razor-thin. In any case, I'm immensely proud of my adoptive state, and I am especially proud my own neighbors.

I hope that the Arizona Together' success can be repeated elsewhere when our opponents look for someone to scapegoat. But I think it is important to recognize the possibility that what happened here may be unique. If CAP had offered a "cleaner" amendment without the domestic partnership prohibitions, if CAP had reached out beyond its own base, if Arizona's gay community were less integrated, if Arizona Together hadn't gotten its act together before CAP began their efforts -- if any of this had been different, we might not be celebrating today. As it is, the margin of Prop 107's defeat so far is not large. But it may be large enough.

posted by maggie at 10:50 AM | Link | 0 comments

FIRSTBOOK.ORG

Books for low-income kids.
posted by Eve at 8:01 PM | Link | 0 comments

GAY DONOR OR GAY DAD?: From the NY Times Magazine

[LOTS of anecdotes and discussion in this long piece. These excerpts don't do it justice. --Eve]

...Each of the 10 gay donor dads I met with in recent months maintained a different level of involvement with his lesbian partners and their children. Some co-parents buy houses near one another and interact nearly every day. Others, like Guy and his co-parents, live a thousand miles apart and arrange visits or vacations together every few weeks or months. (When I asked Guy if there was any downside to fathering in this way, he answered yes, missing the kids. "They give me incredible joy," he said. But then he added, "It's the kind of thing where it's, you know, when you miss someone, although that hurts, it’s a good reason to feel bad.") One donor dad told me that he never had any plans to be a father. The day he realized he was gay, he said, he felt he had been given a pass. No child-rearing. No Little League talk or barbecues. He looked at donating his sperm as "helping my friends make a family." But like a lot of gay donor dads I spoke to, he didn't fully anticipate just how attached he would become. He is now thrilled to visit with his 21/2-year-old daughter every Wednesday from 4p.m. to 6 p.m. When I asked him what she called him, he said: "That'll be her choice. I think 'Dad' is a word. That's a word I hope to use." ...

In many respects, R.'s experience would seem to confirm the worst fears of those--inside and outside the gay community--who think attempts to re-engineer family dynamics in this way are doomed from the start. "I could never get a regular schedule for visiting," R. said. "I was always kept at a distance. I was never brought in in a way where I felt like I was being acknowledged as really more than just a friend." This went on for years, and he started to tear up as he described it. What pained him most, he said, was the feeling of irrevocability, the fact that each moment was a lost opportunity. "I was basically watching her grow up and having no control, just watching it go by. I would see her on the street, it was like, you know, you can imagine, I was looking at my child but not having access to her really."

Like a lot of lesbian mothers at that time, M. said, she and her partner were, as she put it, "kind of paranoid. We didn't want to promise a set amount of time or, say, summer vacation or any of that stuff." She continued: "I think one of our big mistakes in our situation was we had no clue, all three of us going into it, and there weren't that many people for us to talk to or things to read about it. He was just saying he wanted to be around and be known and have a relationship. And looking back, even that seemed scary to us."

It was a deeply painful period for R. "I mean, if I were to say anything to people who were thinking about something like this," he said, "it would be that with this kind of donor relationship, this web of affinity and genetics, it's not like an article of clothing where someone gives it to you and then it's yours and you can walk away. If you don't want to have to be answerable to somebody, then go to an anonymous sperm bank. It's like they wanted the privilege of being able to say to their children, 'That's your father,' without having to really give up anything. And so, what's that about?"

Luckily for R., things changed over time. When his daughter was 2, her nonbiological mother became impregnated with sperm donated by a gay black friend. She bore twins. A couple of years later, the mothers split up. A custody battle ensued, in which the white mother tried to gain sole custody of all three children. The judge ruled against her. The final agreement essentially assigned the three mixed-race children to the white mother roughly 60 percent of the time and to the black mother 40 percent of the time.

The current family tree is a crazy circuit board: The black woman has a new female partner. The white woman is now living with a man, and the two have had their own child. So, as R. said, between the one child that R. has with the black mother, the twins borne by the white mother with a black donor and the newest, fourth, child born to her with her new male partner, all of whom have some sort of sibling relation to one another, things can be a little confusing. ..."I'd say they're like divorce kids," he said. "They've got a family that split up; they go back and forth." But the kids love both their mothers, and though the relationships may seem confusing to outsiders, there is certainly no lack of people in their lives who care about them--something many "straight" families can't claim.

more
posted by Eve at 7:41 PM | Link | 2 comments

NEW HEAD OF EPISCOPAL CHURCH ON FERTILITY: Interview with Katharine Jefferts Schori

...How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

Episcopalians aren't interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

No. It's probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

You're actually Catholic by birth; your parents joined the Episcopal Church when you were 9. What led them to convert?

It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged.

more
posted by Eve at 7:36 PM | Link | 0 comments

MY BOSS IS 65 AND PREGNANT: HOW FERTILITY ADVANCES COULD ALLOW WOMEN TO TAKE OVER THE BOARDROOM: Tim Harford

The revelation by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine that women in their 50s can cope with the stresses of parenthood as well--or as badly--as anyone else has again raised the prospect that the experience of women such as Dr. Patricia Rashbrook, who this year became the oldest new mother in Britain at the age of 62, will become increasingly common. That seems unlikely for now. Treatments are expensive, unreliable, and imperfect: Both Dr. Rashbrook and Adriana Iliescu, said at age 66 to be the world's oldest woman to give birth, needed donated eggs. ...

Women may have already overtaken men at American schools and universities, but perhaps they will not do so in the boardroom until they can reliably delay pregnancy into their 50s and 60s. Then employers might start to dismiss as remote the risk that a valued employee will take time off to have a family. Indeed, having one might become something you do once you've made it to the top and retired.

Perhaps this is nothing more than science fiction, but if my daughters become part of this future revolution, they can forget about leaving their kids with grandpa.

more
posted by Eve at 7:34 PM | Link | 0 comments