Catching Up

This story has been around, at least as a mention, all over the place. Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune asked three leading opponents of same-sex marriage for some predictions on the negative results of legalized same-sex marriage. A simple proposition, since we now have six states in which same-sex marriage is legal, as opposed to 44 in which it is not likely to be anytime soon, which gives us a nice experimental set-up, so Chapman's request was that the three -- Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz, and David Blankenhorn -- predict those results based on measurable social indicators: divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, marriage rates, and the like. No one seemed to want to respond -- Gallagher declined, Kurtz did not respond to messages, and only David Blankenhorn had anything to say:

The only person willing to talk was David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. His 2007 book, "The Future of Marriage," made a serious and temperate effort to grapple with the case for same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn opposed it out of fear it would drain marriage of its central role by making it "exclusively a private relationship" that is "essentially unconnected to larger social needs and public meanings."

Blankenhorn is on really thin ice here: by definition, marriage is a social and cultural institution, and his "prediction" is demonstrably ridiculous. The whole point of being married is to establish a couple within the social framework -- it's impossible for it to be a "private relationship." That's called "shacking up," or, to be a bit more formal, "cohabitation." (You may remember that I've dissected Blankenhorn before and found his reasoning wanting, at best. To call his arguments "serious and temperate" is much too generous: his arguments are barely passable, but his assumptions are unjusitifed. I suspect that Chapman is buying Blankenhorn's claim that he's a "liberal Democrat" without realizing that his organization receives its funding from right-wing social extremists.)

On the other hand, proponents were not nearly so reticent. The key response:

M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of the new book, "When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage," was happy to answer my question. "I don't think we'll see those kinds of negative social consequences," she said. "In Europe, there's no evidence that patterns have changed for marriage, divorce or non-marital births because of same-sex marriage or registered partnerships."

That's pretty much what I would predict.

Apparently, according to Conor Clarke, Gallagher did come up with some "specific" predictions -- at National Review:

1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way.

4. Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.

I'd love to see Gallagher make a fool of herself in front of a Congressional committee the way Elaine Donnelley did -- but then, she manages just fine all on her own. Her "predictions" are ludicrous -- more airy-fairy scare mantras, all neatly listed. As Clarke points out, "None of them -- with the exception of #4 (where I think Gallagher is just plain wrong) and this vague, unconvincing business of being "punished" in #1 -- are bad things!"

I'm in a mood, so I'll parse Gallagher's "parade of horribles" (as Clarke terms them):

1. When your views are out of step with those of your community, you meet with punishment -- it's called social disapproval. That's what Gallagher wants for proponents of same-sex marriage -- and gays as a group -- but she can't seem to deal with the tables being turned.

2. Public schools are supposed to teach about the world as it is.

3. People who object to their children being taught about the real world can opt for parochial schools or home schooling. It happens all the time. Or do we allow parents to opt their children out of any class that teaches something they're opposed to? Or begin every lesson with the statement "Some people don't agree with this"? Wouldn't that be great in a math class?

4. BS

5. Since that idea has no basis in fact, I don't see why it should be supported anyway.

And Stanley Kurtz apparently is still not responding to messages. (Kurtz, you will remember, did a whole series of articles claiming dire results for families and the social fabric itself if same-sex marriage were legalized, drawing on statistics from Scandinavia and France. In none of those places was same-sex marriage legal at the time. That should give you a good sense of the depth and integrity of his arguments.)

What's especially significant about this story is that it's a column by Steve Chapman, who's a pretty good observer, in the Chicago Tribune, which is not what you'd call a liberal mouthpiece.

And this has been another episode of WTF?