It has been ten years since the Netherlands created same-sex marriage, and a new research brief from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, relying primarily on information from Statistics Netherlands, provides a snapshot of the institutional strength of marriage a decade later. (The article does not address causation factors.) Its modest findings are that gay marriages are relatively rare, marriage rates are down, divorce rates are stable, and the out-of-wedlock birthrate is continuing to climb.
The brief concludes: “At a minimum the data from the Netherlands does suggest that the hopes of those making a conservative case for gay marriage — that it will strengthen marriage generally and dramatically increase the stability and fidelity among same-sex couples — are likely to be disappointed.”
Thank you for the increased motivation to cease and desist from classifying myself as "conservative".
I read, "conservative case for same se# marriage", and the first thing I thought was:
"Is that the 'compassionate' side of the movement? I should use 'classical liberal' more often. Next, there will be a 'conservative case' for abortion".
Oh? There IS already one of those? Go figure ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter the initial rush, this will end up having been a fight over the "right" to do something which not too many people actually want to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan someone point me to the gay marriage advocate who believed gay marriage would "dramatically increase the stability and fidelity among homosexual couples?" This seems like a straw man. I don't think gay marriage will cure cancer, bring us out of a recession, or allow me to fly -- I just think it will treat the relationships of gay couples with equal dignity and allow them the legal protections straight couples currently enjoy.
Moreover, I don't see what difference it makes that relatively few gay marriages have occurred since legalization. Interracial marriages remain rare (particularly those between black and white partners, which were what miscegenation laws were meant to prevent). But the laws stigmatized a group of people, and discriminated harshly against those couples who were interracial (few though they might be). Quite simply, they were wrong, and deserved to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid legalizing inter-racial marriage "strengthen marriage generally"? That wasn't really the point, was it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebwarsch:
Your point is an excellent one and reminds us why it's possible for 20% of the American people to force their will upon the other 80% (with a little help from their liberal representatives in Washington).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bwarsch: Indeed. Anyone who has read any of the activist literature from the 1960's and 1970's would have realized that the enthusiasm for marriage in the alternative lifestyles community was virtually non-existent. It is not a coincidence that the most vocal advocates of "SSM" have been straight progressives. Along with a few actually in the community in question like Andrew Sullivan, this issue has largely been pushed by those interested in moving alternative lifestyles into the mainstream, while the people for whose purported benefit this has been pushed have been slow to warm up to its benefits. That is not speculation--the statistics bear it out.
@madisonian: Very broadly, "conservatives" are those who believe that the way things have traditionally been done has merit, based on the power of a sort of social natural selection. "Liberals" are those who jump to support new ideas that come along in the hopes (only occasionally realized) that they will prove beneficial to society--as I like to say, liberals go to bed at night not knowing what cause they will passionately believe in when they wake up the next morning. As such, the "conservative" argument is generally for doing things the way they have always been done--e.g., marriage being between a man and a woman (and not aborting fetuses, and not having the state run society, etc., etc.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo now you're blaming the problems of heterosexual marriage - in the Netherlands, at that - on SSMarriage? As if there's a connection between the two other than the statistics were concurrent? Honestly, such far-reaching conclusions are laughable.
It is however amusing and ironic that the American Cancer Society clip you must play for verification stars Kylie Minogue, one of Gay Right's biggest advocates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Pennsylvania Yankee: Interesting. Every time I read these kinds of arguments, I wonder: where were they during the first, say, twenty or thirty years of the gay rights movement?
The fact is, gay rights advocates were initially (e.g. during the 1960's and 1970's) dead set *against* marriage, which they viewed as not just hopelessly dated with its emphasis on reproduction (so pre-modern!), but which was based upon a fundamentally flawed premise of monogamy (which they thought was completely unrealistic), and which bound people into repressive social structures dominated by the patriarchy.
So what changed?
I can answer that fairly easily: progressives figured out that they could redefine marriage. They could remove the gender-specific aspects outright, downplay the reproductive aspects, blur the lines on expectations of fidelity, take away the sense of permanence, and render it nothing more than social recognition of a romantic relationship. The question I would ask is not if that "weakens" marriage, but a more fundamental one: is that really marriage?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt has been my personal experience that the vast majority of gay & lesbian friends & acquaintances I have known:
A. Want desperately the right to get married;
B. Want desperately nothing to do with marriage.
*Especially* the gay men, for obvious biological reasons-- the unique perk of satisfying a typical male se-x drive without the traditional heterose-xual consequences, i.e. pregnancy and shotgun marriage.
Ask any red-blooded heterose-xual man if they could have all the se-x with women they want with no consequences-- guilt-free one night stands, no pregnancies, no marriage worries, no estrogen swings, and fewer hard feelings when relationships end-- and 95% of heterose-xual men would take that deal in a heartbeat. If you're a gay man... why wouldn't *you* take that deal, instead of wanting to get married and raise kids in a leafy suburb chained to a minivan?
I've always been curious how the homose-xual rights movement in America, and globally, would have developed had AIDS never existed. The tragedy-- and fear-- of the disease aside, I venture that AIDS eventually *increased* social acceptance of homose-xuality, insofar as it increased the perception of homose-xuality as a sympathetic plight, and making it impossible in general for society to ignore homose-xuality.
What's more, without the fear of AIDS-- and its effect on se-xual mores, in both the heterose-xual and homose-xual populations-- homose-xuality would likely be *even more* associated than it is today with se-xual freedom / promiscuity. I think a large part of the homose-xual rights movement in America was consumed by the desire to appear normal and non-threatening once AIDS came on the scene: "See, we're not scary, we're safe! We want to adopt children! We even want to get married! See!"
Instead, I think there's still an undercurrent in the gay community that rails against this push towards heterose-xual norms-- and sometimes it's not even much of an undercurrent (visit San Francisco and see for yourself). There aren't a lot of social benefits to being gay, but one HUGE benefit is that you don't have to be straight, i.e. consumed with the pressures heterose-xual couples face, like marriage, childbearing, and even monogamy.
Anyway... I believe there is precisely no one surprised by these findings, whether in the Netherlands, or here at home. Marriage as a *heterose-xual* institution is dying, who thought *homose-xual* marriage would be any stronger, especially when there are ZERO biological underpinnings for such a thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseP.S. It's really, REALLY hard to write about this topic with NRO's silly filter!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe statement I often hear is "Why do I care? It won't effect my marriage."
That's quite true. Gay marriage will have no effect on my marriage. That doesn't say that it won't have an effect on the marriages of my children or (hopefully at some point) my grandchildren.
By redefining marriage to PV's possible "social recognition of a romantic relationship", it weakens the meaning of marriage as a unique and special relationship. That doesn't hurt me, but it removes some of the structure and meaning for later generations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must say I'm a bit surprised by reactions to this study. If you compare the trends in the Netherlands to the trends in the US, they are roughly the same. Marriages are down, divorces are slightly down and out-of-wedlock births are continuing up. In other words, it appears that the legalization of Gay Marriage has had no net impact on the Netherlands- good or bad.
)
)
(US Marriage Stats: External Link
(US Birth Stats: External Link
Most of the reactions in the comments, even from people who I've come to trust for honest debate, seem to be hand waving past the significance of this.
The #1 Conservative case against Gay Marriage is that it weakens the foundations of marriage. That case is weakened by the findings of this study- that the metrics of marriage seem no different in a country with Gay Marriage legalized.
I'm a social conservative, but I am also a Government Minimalist. Since it appears that there are no benefits to preventing Gay Marriage, I don't see the case for expending dollars and cents on this issue, ESPECIALLY at the Federal level.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGDainis: "That doesn't say that it won't have an effect on the marriages of my children or (hopefully at some point) my grandchildren."
You're right, it might affect them. If any of them turn out to be gay, they would be able to get married. This is a very good reason to support gay marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBefore SSM in Holland thatcountry was noted for its liberal laws governing domestic relationships and its traditional marital patterns. The SSM campaign influenced both the laws and the culture. Holland's nonmarital trends went from a modest and slow rise to a steep and rapid rise. Ideas have consequences.
Jon Rauch and Andrew Sullivan, among others, have argued that SSM would be very good for the general society and for the instiution of marriage and for the homosexual subpopulation. This report indicates that that view has not been vindicated. It is a simple but important point for those whose philosophy and/r attitudinal inclination is conservative. SSM supporters have used this argument to recruit, or rather to disarm and neutralize, some conservative thinkers and traditionalists. They were bamboozled by an argument that unfortunately is negated by the special example of nonmarital trends in Holland.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegdanis
"That doesn't hurt me, but it removes some of the structure and meaning for later generations."
Surely gay marriage- allowing couples t make life long, loving, legally binding relationships does actually create structure and meaning for these people- i.e. the opposite of what you said.
Anyway as a more open minded conservative i've never bought into the gods, gays and guns wing of the party- luckily its guaranteed in western societies that a)abortion will remain legal in one form or another so all the bloviating over this subject is a waste of effort (on both sides) 2) gay marriage will become law as new generations are much more compassionate over these types of issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Chairm-
Your statement does not line up with the facts. As the data in my links (below) shows, the trends in the Netherlands are no different than here in the US. Please show me this "rapid rise" that you claim occurred after the passing of this law, because I don't see it. And if you can somehow tease out the rise, how is it any different than a similar rise in the US, where SSM is not legal?
I hate it when liberals try to steal bases and move goalposts (mixed metaphors, NO!) on me, and so I refuse to let Conservatives do the same. Everyone here is focused on some argument that SSM would Strengthen traditional marriage. Such arguments may have been put forward, but they were nowhere near as powerful as the claim BY CONSERVATIVES that SSM would undermine traditional marriage. And these statistics do not bare that out.
The Liberal case for SSM has primarily been about getting the government to treat a certain class "equally". Any argument about benefits to traditional marriage were halfhearted and tangential at best. For conservatives to crow about these numbers, which undermine one of there most cogent arguments, is like a chess player boasting of the pawn he took at the cost of his queen.
Even though this is one study, I ask conservatives to really question their assumptions here. If it cannot be shown that SSM undermines traditional marriage, then shouldn't our guiding principles of minimal government compel us to just get government out of the marriage regulation all together?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse