SSM Update: South Africa Gets Gay Marriage

President signs the bill passed by parliament (under order of the supreme court) legalizing gay marriage.
posted by maggie at 1:25 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Abstinence or Contraceptives?

What explains the recent declines in teen pregnancy and childbearing? Abstinence or contraception? This new study by Santelli et. all in the latest American Journal of Public Health finds the bulk of the decline is caused by better contraceptive use. (86 percent overall). But reduced sexual activity also played a role, accounting for about a quarter of the decline in younger teens.
posted by maggie at 9:54 AM | Link | 0 comments

A Response to Lesthaeghe and Neidert

Another fascinating study by Ron J. Lesthaeghe and Lisa Neidert, "The Second Demographic Transition in the United States: Exception or Textbook Example?" in the December 2006 issue of Population and Development Review.

Actually it appears to be a published version of an earlier paper, which had made its way into a column of mine this February. In turn, in the highly connected world we live in my syndicated column has made it into this latest published version. (!)

But rather oddly, these two distinguished scholars claim their research disproves my column. "Same-sex cohabitation is still an exceptional feature and taking it as the cause of low fertility, as some conservative commentators suggest (e.g., Gallagher 2006), is not supported." (p. 674).

Of course I'm rather flattered to be noticed at all. But equally of course I have never argued that same sex cohabitation causes low fertility.

What I did point out in this newspaper column is that the states these scholars have identified as having progressed well into the Second Demographic Transition map almost perfectly onto the the states selected by gay marriage strategists for pursue gay marriage litigation; what this suggested to me is not that gay cohabitation causes low fertility, but that it probably wasn't an accident that states in the middle of disconnecting marriage from generativity culturally speaking were viewed by gay marriage advocates as the "most receptive" to gay marriage. Here's the relevant paragraphs:

"In a fascinating recent study, Lesthaeghe and a colleague looked for evidence of the Second Demographic Transition in America. What states are leading indicators of SDT, as measured by postponement of marriage and children? California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and (the most extreme outlier of all) Massachusetts.

Recognize this list? Except for Rhode Island, they are among the first states gay marriage advocates chose to pursue court-created gay marriage. What instinct led them to suppose that legal elites would be particularly open to the argument?

Stanley Kurtz recently argued that the explosion in Dutch illegitimacy is directly connected to a campaign for gay registered partnerships and gay marriage in the mid-1990s. It's a hard case to prove in the middle of a marital collapse of historic proportions all over Europe.

But I do think it is fair to say these two trends go hand in hand in this sense: Cultures deeply committed to "generativity" -- to the importance of men and women getting married and having children as a social norm -- tend to find the idea of gay marriage deeply disturbing, if not incomprehensible. Conversely, societies in the midst of devaluing the norms that sustain the generative family (in the name of attractive alternative values such as increasing expressive individualism and moral autonomy) will find gay marriage a natural fit, an idea that both expresses and reinforces their deepest moral preferences.

posted by maggie at 7:11 PM | Link | 3 comments

Maryland Oral Argument

As mentioned before, oral arguments in the Maryland marriage case will be heard December 4 at 10:00 a.m. by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. The webcast will be available here. The court has made available the briefs of the state and the plaintiffs here where there is also a list of the amici curiae briefs filed in the case (there are 22 of them with one being listed twice and another not listed). The amici briefs and other legal documents are available here.
posted by William Duncan at 12:21 PM | Link | 0 comments

SSM Updates: Canada Votes

F Rottles blogs.
posted by maggie at 12:05 PM | Link | 2 comments

Gay Millionaires Unite/Salon

Salon magazine on Adam Rose and Sue Kelly's defeat in New York; Tim Gill's millions in Colorado. A new breed of rich gay man flexes some political muscle.
posted by maggie at 10:59 AM | Link | 2 comments

PA Court Penalizes Lesbian Mom for Challenging Partner's Parental Rights

No word on what the kids think about being re-awarded here. I sincerely hope they are pleased:

"HARRISBURG - A lesbian woman has retained primary custody of twin boys, despite the objections of her former partner - the children's biological mother.

The state Supreme Court yesterday kept in place a Bucks County judge's ruling that the boys' best interests were served by granting primary physical custody to Patricia Jones rather than Ellen Boring Jones, who had been partners for 13 years.

The county judge had determined that Jones was preferable after comparing the two women's "psychological profiles" and because Boring Jones had tried to cut off Jones' contact with their sons.

"The record is replete with evidence that Boring tried in every way possible to sabotage Jones' relationship with the children," according to a September 2005 Superior Court opinion that upheld the lower court.

The women began living together in 1988, and Boring Jones gave birth to the twins in December 1996. She had become pregnant with sperm from an anonymous donor.
Boring Jones took the children with her when she moved out in 2001, according to court records.

Jones' lawyer, Alphonso B. David, said the ruling demonstrated that custody can be shifted away from biological parents without necessarily having to prove they are unfit.

"It ensures that biological ties, standing alone, cannot trump the best interests of the child," David said.

Messages seeking comment from Robert M. Cox and Kenneth R. Williams, listed on the docket as Boring Jones' attorneys, were not immediately returned."

posted by maggie at 10:49 AM | Link | 2 comments

Virginia Court cedes jurisdiction to Vermont Court

A November 28, AP story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112800794.html

RICHMOND - A Virginia appeals court sidestepped the issue of civil unions Tuesday and ruled that Vermont courts have jurisdiction in a custody battle between two former lesbian partners.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia remanded the dispute between Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins to a lower court.

"By so holding, we do not address whether Virginia law recognizes or endorses same-sex unions entered into in another state or jurisdiction," the court wrote in its decision, adding the ruling was based on jurisdiction.

Vermont became the first state in the nation to recognize same-sex couples' relationships in 2000, enacting a civil union law that mimics marriage. Virginia does not have a similar statute, and voters in November approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

posted by Margaret Nell at 10:21 PM | Link | 2 comments

PUTTING PARENTS FIRST: Yuval Levin

[Mostly a theory piece/conversation-starter, about the need for conservatives to make the tension between family and market fruitful rather than debilitating to both. I'm excerpting the slightly wonkier bit. --Eve]

...Insured families often feel the high costs of care only very indirectly, and their worries arise from the perceived complexity and instability of health care coverage. That complexity leaves many families anxious while they're healthy about whether they will be adequately covered if something goes wrong. The rigid bond between employment and insurance, meanwhile, can make losing one's job, or even just choosing to change jobs, a matter of life and death, and contributes to a paralysis that harms both the vitality of the economy and the stability of the family. ...By seeing the problem through the eyes of the parenting class, conservatives could see their way toward a more practical approach to health care--one that would begin with the modest goal of championing insurance portability and only then proceed to introduce more elements of consumer choice and price transparency into the health care sector. At least rhetorically, if not also practically, stability and security need to come before efficiency if the parenting class is to endorse a pro-market health care reform. The result would also make pro-market solutions to the problem of the uninsured more politically plausible.

Conservatives should also look beyond the horizon and see that long-term care for the aged is about to become the next major concern of the parenting class. ...Conservatives need to find ways to encourage long-term care insurance and to reward family caregiving for the elderly.

As it happens, the case for such policies overlaps with the case for entitlement reform. In both instances, conservatives need to construct a clear narrative of the significance and shape of the aging society--to bring into wide circulation basic demographic facts that could help families understand what more elderly and fewer young Americans will mean in their lives, and what might be done to prepare. ...Conservatives should also be unabashed in making the case that larger families are essential to addressing the problems of the aging society--both in general economic terms that relate to the prospects for old age entitlements, and in the lives of particular families--and therefore in pursuing policies across the board that reward and encourage parenthood.

In education, it is well past time to have another serious go at school choice, which can appeal to the parenting class both as a solution in their own children's lives and as a call to conscience. By highlighting failing schools in underserved areas (a task made easier by the mountains of data now becoming available through the No Child Left Behind Act), while making clear to parents that their own children need not be thrown into a confusing new system of choices and options if their schools are working, conservatives can build a middle-class case for helping lower-class children escape failing schools.

more
posted by Eve at 6:30 PM | Link | 0 comments

MALE BIRTH-CONTROL PILL: WHAT DO YOU THINK?--from The Onion

Peter Haynes,
Insurance Salesman
"If my wife can't remember to take her pill, what makes you think I can rely on her to make me take mine?"

more
posted by Eve at 1:56 PM | Link | 1 comments

SSM Updates: Maryland and New Jersey

Maryland supreme court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday. According to 365gay.com, they will be webcast. (We'll see if we can find the URL).

In New Jersey, an AP story on two new options for legislators on how to respond to the supreme court decision there. (Leadership is signaling it will vote on a civil unions bill before the end of the year):

"Conservatives in N.J. offer alternative to gay marriage
Bill would allow brother and sister to register for 'equal benefits'

Conservative groups in New Jersey announced plans Monday to push two measures that would keep gay unions from having the same legal status as marriage.

A constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between only a man and a woman was widely expected. The second measure is a novel approach described by its backers as a "compromise" that would grant the rights of marriage — but not the title — not only to gays but also to couples in other domestic relationships. . .

Key lawmakers in the Democratic majority in the Legislature say they favor letting gay couples register in civil unions that would offer all the benefits of marriage but not the title. Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr. (D-Camden) has said action may be taken by the end of the year. . .

The new measure outlined by conservatives Monday would offer the same benefits not just to gay couples but to people in various other housekeeping arrangements, regardless of their sexual orientation.

For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the employer-sponsored health insurance for the other, for instance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.

. . .Making the law broad would avoid something distasteful to many conservatives — elevating the relationships of same-sex couples alone to the same legal status enjoyed by married couples. . .

The constitutional amendment, which Cardinale said he would introduce, was widely expected. Similar measures have been introduced the last several years and have never had so much as a committee hearing.

It would take the support of 60 percent of the Legislature, or a majority in consecutive years, to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election. . ."

UPDATE: The Philly Inquirer's version here.
posted by maggie at 11:12 AM | Link | 54 comments

WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE A STUDENT: Paul Tough

[Disclaimer: I have NOT read the entire article yet, so if you think these excerpts are not representative of its substance, please write a comment rather than smiting me! --Eve]

...Researchers began peering deep into American homes, studying up close the interactions between parents and children. The first scholars to emerge with a specific culprit in hand were Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, child psychologists at the University of Kansas, who in 1995 published the results of an intensive research project on language acquisition. Ten years earlier, they recruited 42 families with newborn children in Kansas City, and for the following three years they visited each family once a month, recording absolutely everything that occurred between the child and the parent or parents. The researchers then transcribed each encounter and analyzed each child's language development and each parent's communication style. They found, first, that vocabulary growth differed sharply by class and that the gap between the classes opened early. By age 3, children whose parents were professionals had vocabularies of about 1,100 words, and children whose parents were on welfare had vocabularies of about 525 words. The children's I.Q.'s correlated closely to their vocabularies. The average I.Q. among the professional children was 117, and the welfare children had an average I.Q. of 79.

When Hart and Risley then addressed the question of just what caused those variations, the answer they arrived at was startling. By comparing the vocabulary scores with their observations of each child's home life, they were able to conclude that the size of each child's vocabulary correlated most closely to one simple factor: the number of words the parents spoke to the child. That varied greatly across the homes they visited, and again, it varied by class. In the professional homes, parents directed an average of 487 "utterances"--anything from a one-word command to a full soliloquy--to their children each hour. In welfare homes, the children heard 178 utterances per hour.

What's more, the kinds of words and statements that children heard varied by class. The most basic difference was in the number of "discouragements" a child heard--prohibitions and words of disapproval--compared with the number of encouragements, or words of praise and approval. By age 3, the average child of a professional heard about 500,000 encouragements and 80,000 discouragements. For the welfare children, the situation was reversed: they heard, on average, about 75,000 encouragements and 200,000 discouragements. Hart and Risley found that as the number of words a child heard increased, the complexity of that language increased as well. As conversation moved beyond simple instructions, it blossomed into discussions of the past and future, of feelings, of abstractions, of the way one thing causes another--all of which stimulated intellectual development. ...

...Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor at Teachers College, has overseen hundreds of interviews of parents and collected thousands of hours of videotape of parents and children, and she and her research team have graded each one on a variety of scales. Their conclusion: Children from more well-off homes tend to experience parental attitudes that are more sensitive, more encouraging, less intrusive and less detached--all of which, they found, serves to increase I.Q. and school-readiness. They analyzed the data to see if there was something else going on in middle-class homes that could account for the advantage but found that while wealth does matter, child-rearing style matters more. ...

Another researcher, an anthropologist named Annette Lareau, has investigated the same question from a cultural perspective. Over the course of several years, Lareau and her research assistants observed a variety of families from different class backgrounds, basically moving in to each home for three weeks of intensive scrutiny. Lareau found that the middle-class families she studied all followed a similar strategy, which she labeled concerted cultivation. The parents in these families engaged their children in conversations as equals, treating them like apprentice adults and encouraging them to ask questions, challenge assumptions and negotiate rules. They planned and scheduled countless activities to enhance their children's development--piano lessons, soccer games, trips to the museum.

The working-class and poor families Lareau studied did things differently. In fact, they raised their children the way most parents, even middle-class parents, did a generation or two ago. They allowed their children much more freedom to fill in their afternoons and weekends as they chose--playing outside with cousins, inventing games, riding bikes with friends--but much less freedom to talk back, question authority or haggle over rules and consequences. Children were instructed to defer to adults and treat them with respect. This strategy Lareau named accomplishment of natural growth.

In her book "Unequal Childhoods," published in 2003, Lareau described the costs and benefits of each approach and concluded that the natural-growth method had many advantages. Concerted cultivation, she wrote, "places intense labor demands on busy parents. ... Middle-class children argue with their parents, complain about their parents' incompetence and disparage parents' decisions." Working-class and poor children, by contrast, "learn how to be members of informal peer groups. They learn how to manage their own time. They learn how to strategize." But outside the family unit, Lareau wrote, the advantages of "natural growth" disappear. In public life, the qualities that middle-class children develop are consistently valued over the ones that poor and working-class children develop. Middle-class children become used to adults taking their concerns seriously, and so they grow up with a sense of entitlement, which gives them a confidence, in the classroom and elsewhere, that less-wealthy children lack. The cultural differences translate into a distinct advantage for middle-class children in school, on standardized achievement tests and, later in life, in the workplace.

more
posted by Eve at 10:18 PM | Link | 4 comments

Hispanic Family Values?

Heather McDonald sees trouble for Hispanic family values in the latest Census data:

"Runaway illegitimacy is creating a new U.S. underclass.

Unless the life chances of children raised by single mothers suddenly improve, the explosive growth of the U.S. Hispanic population over the next couple of decades does not bode well for American social stability. Hispanic immigrants bring near–Third World levels of fertility to America, coupled with what were once thought to be First World levels of illegitimacy. (In fact, family breakdown is higher in many Hispanic countries than here.) Nearly half of the children born to Hispanic mothers in the U.S. are born out of wedlock, a proportion that has been increasing rapidly with no signs of slowing down. Given what psychologists and sociologists now know about the much higher likelihood of social pathology among those who grow up in single-mother households, the Hispanic baby boom is certain to produce more juvenile delinquents, more school failure, more welfare use, and more teen pregnancy in the future. . ."

posted by maggie at 1:28 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: What Creates Creative People?

Markus Baer, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis in something called "Creativity Research Journal" says that firstborns demonstrate greater creativity when they have a. lots of sibilings b. close in age and c. of the opposite sex. More procreation equals more creative people?

". . .In conducting his research, Baer had more than 400 individuals work in teams to develop ideas for solving a given set of problems. After the exercise, each individual in the team rated every other person in the team on how creative his or her contributions were.

Each individual was also asked to describe his or her family constellation. Baer said he controlled for factors such as age and gender and the education level of the parents.

"What stood out was that firstborns who had many siblings, close in age, and of the opposite sex tended to have more creative ideas," Baer said. "Now that we know how firstborns handle hypothetical problems, it would be interesting to follow them and learn what kinds of careers they chose."

posted by maggie at 9:52 AM | Link | 0 comments

Unmarried Birth Rates Rises, Again

The good news is teen births are way down, and the U.S. total fertility rate (in a depopulating world) nudges up to right below replacement. But the bad news on unmarried childbearing is . . .bad. From the CDC summary, "Births: Preliminary Data for 2005":

". . .All measures of childbearing by unmarried women increased to record levels for the Nation in 2005 according to preliminary data (2,4). The total number of births rose 4 percent to 1,525,345, compared with 1,470,189 in 2004. During 2002-2005, the number increased 12 percent overall.

The birth rate increased 3 percent in 2005 to 47.6 per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years, up from 46.1 in 2004.

The proportion of births to unmarried women increased in 2005 to 36.8 percent, compared with 35.8 percent in 2004. The proportions increased for all population subgroups by race and Hispanic origin (Table 1 and Figure 3).

In 2005, well over four in five births to teenagers were nonmarital (Table 3). Over one-half of births to women aged 20-24 years and nearly 3 in 10 births to women aged 25-29 years were to unmarried women. . .

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

Is Population Decline a Bad Thing?

Jonathan Last of the Philly Inquirer is inclined to think so:

". . . Of course, this worry is theoretical because we've never seen population decline on the massive scale that's coming our way. Or rather, we've never seen it in the modern world. . . .Or, as Mark Steyn notes in America Alone, "There is no precedent in human history for economic growth on declining human capital."

It is impossible to predict with certainty the side effects of population decline. But there is good reason to believe it will be bad for us. Innovation will suffer as the demand for nearly everything (save health care) slackens. The welfare state is unsustainable in a contracting, top-heavy population. And instead of producing windfalls of excess supply, economies will probably contract. As Livi-Bacci observes, "Historically, areas depopulated or in the process of losing population have almost always been characterized by backward economies."

posted by maggie at 10:20 PM | Link | 0 comments