I didn’t have time this weekend to write the second part of A Portrait of My Father as an Old Man so you’ll have to wait awhile to read it. I’ll try to post it later this week, but most likely you’ll have to wait until next weekend.

Until then, happy swimming.

At MarriageDebate.com, Eve Tushnet asks:

I am! I’m sick, sick and tired! Why can’t they just embrace the Scandinavian data?^[1]

(Click figure to see larger version.)

Now this is interesting. Evidently, same-sex marriage would result in only a small amount of savings for the federal government. But you know what they say, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money!”
From The Congressional Budget Office:

I can’t say this is the main advantage to legalizing SSM, and I’d still be for SSM if it cost us a bit. Still, it’s nice to see another perk.

Atrios has posted a memo written by Republican pollster’and host of his own show on MSNBC’Frank Luntz detailing talking points for those wishing to convince Americans of the value of the War in Iraq. There are a few gems in there including, “No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11″ and:

But the following most caught my eye:

I may be misreading this, but it appears that Luntz is suggesting’and that Bush is actually saying’that the proof that the War in Iraq is connected to the “Wider War on Terror” lies in the fact that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are being attacked by persons using similar tactics to those deployed by terrorists.

Or, to put it another way: we’re being attacked by terrorists now that we’ve invaded Iraq, therefore the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror.

This afternoon I finished reading Voltaire’s Candide, so when I read that little loop-de-loop of argumentation, I couldn’t help but be reminded of some of the things said by Voltaire’s rather optimistic hero.

After having killed a Jesuit priest’who happens to be the brother of his mistress, Cun’gonde’Candide flees into the forests of South America with his loyal companion, Cacambo. In order to facilitate their escape, Cacambo made Candide wear the robes of the slain Jesuit. In the forest, the pair are captured by a tribe of cannibals who want to kill and eat Candide because the believe him to be a Jesuit. Cacambo explains the true nature of the situation to the cannibals who see the light of reason and release Candide and Cacambo. After being freed and given gifts, “Candide could not weary of exclaiming over his preservation.”

Voltaire’s intent was to lampoon the more extreme applications of a school of thought known as philosophical optimism. This philosophy was proposed by Leibnitz and is, in brief, the idea that all things in the universe, being created by God, are ordered for the best, or that such things are ordered in such a way as to produce the best of all possible outcomes. Thus, this world is the best of all possible worlds, for how could it be otherwise?

At the end of Candide, after the eponymous hero has gone through a series of rather nasty events’events which were, almost invariably, avoidable had Candide not been a philosophical optimist’after which none of Candide’s goals or efforts at happiness are preserved, his philosopher companion, Pangloss, offers this bit of good cheer:

So you see, the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror because we have encouraged terrorists to attack the U.S. in Iraq. This proves, quite conclusively I’d say, that the War in Iraq is the best of all possible wars.

He looks nervous the way a child would, or like an animal abducted for the pleasure of a schoolyard crowd. The collared shirt and slacks seem to be foreign objects; he wears them without the confidence of a person who understands why it is that the shirt should be tucked in, a belt worn, and his hair brushed in that certain way. His shoes are those casual tan slip-ons they sell in Payless. They’re strong enough to walk around in and look nice enough with his slacks, but I’m happy that the portrait will end at his middle or, at worst, his knees.
Read the rest of this entry »

Okay, so it looks like a special effect from a low budget sci-fi movie, what’s so cool about that? It’s real. See also this video. More here.

(via Making Light.)

Yesterday Amp posted about some of the wacky music he heard at a high school graduation party. In summary: hits from the late seventies and eighties. Amp wonders why kids are listening to this stuff that is so obviously anachronistic to the youth of today; I may have an answer.

I can’t speak for hip-hop, as I’m still desperately trying to find some aside from DJ Shadow and Prefuse 73 that doesn’t suck, but rock-and-roll is currently experiencing an obsession with the late seventies and the whole of the eighties. Consider the success of the Darkness, a pseudo-80’s band, or the “dancepunk” groups—the Rapture, !!!, Radio 5, Liars—that sound like the Gang of Four, or the “garage rock revival” of the White Stripes and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs—not to mention the Strokes—or the post-punk obsession of groups like Interpol, or the electroclash influences of the Postal Service.

Admittedly, most of these bands are still in the province of the indie cool kids, but I think that there’s a resurgence of eighties culture across the white bread spectrum. Take a dip into Hot Topic these days and what’ll you see? The same thing you’ll see at Target: Transformers, Thundercats, Strawberry Shortcake, My Little Pony—the defining toys and paraphanalia of childhood in the eighties. I’m not surprised that this has trickled down into the musical tastes of the graduates at the party Amp went to.

I’m not sure what causes this except that it may, perhaps, be the same thing that’s made me seek out some music from the eighties. I’m only a couple years older than the graduates Amp visited—although I’ve been out of high school for much longer, so this analysis may mean less than nothing—and I’ve always been quietly fascinated with the eighties because I’m aware that the first six years of my life were spent in them but I can’t remember anything about them. I can vaguely remember the New Kids on the Block, the crimped hair, and the wretched music that powered the inspirational sections of movies, but little more than that. My memory doesn’t really begin until ‘92 and doesn’t start to crystalize until ‘93 or ‘94. I’ve always wondered if I missed anything important, any really great music or movies or fashions or whatever. So when I got to be seventeen or eighteen or so, I started looking.

I’m wondering if the “kids these days” aren’t doing much of the same thing. Were those things that they played with as kids—or, more likely, the things that their older siblings played with as kids—actually cool? Was the music terrible or good or what? Was The Neverending Story really all that good of a movie?

So that’s my explanation for things: a bit of vague nostalgia mixed with a hindsight curiousity and a culture that’s actively interested in recycling some bits from the eighties mixed with the simple fact that music these days is actually remarkably dull if you’re a white kid who can’t or won’t like hip-hop. In ten years or so, if popular music is as dead as it is today, I wouldn’t be surprised to see kids jumping around to a playlist that included Limp Bizkit and Britney Spears and Ricky Martin. At which point, I’ll probably be standing around, looking at kids at a high school graduation party, saying to myself, “The fuck are they doing listening to this stuff?”

Hmm, as a final note, I did remember one group, or individual at least, from the hip-hop half of the airways who has been digging into the eighties for inspiration for his music. Big Boi’s half of the latest Outkast album, Speakerboxx/The Love Below, was heavy with beats cut with old-school 808’s which hit the height of their popularity with musicians in the late eighties.

Justin Katz has responded to my responses to his response to my post! Once again, he complains I look to narrowly to find a theme, and I should reconsider the effect of welfare reform. He also suggests I am distorting the theme suggested by Dr. Kurtz, and provides an example showing how to identify principle themes of campaigns. He also wonders about my motive and I think is is concerned this may be a waste of time.

As to my motive, does it matter?

Readers can choose to read or not. As I told Mr. Katz, he can reply or not as the whim takes him. Evidently he has chosen to do so, having some motive of his own. I imagine his readers and mine will soon grow bored; I am sure some already are. For that reason, I will not likely blog responding to Mr. Katz again.

Notwithstanding Mr. Katz statement to the contrary, I have not given him or anyone my word that this is not a big waste of time. As it happens, I have plenty of time, and I am enjoying writing this more than doing the laundry. So, I will respond. Those who prefer to get their laundry done, or just kick back and relax on a Friday afternoon are welcome to do so!

Now I will proceed to the criticisms.
Read the rest of this entry »

Katz:

I believe Mr. Katz is objecting to my use of the term “white, educated elites” and providing a link to an article applying the term to Maggie Gallagher.

I’ll admit it is more polite to refer to people directly by name instead of alluding to them by their race, educational and economic characteristics. Moreover, the fact one is white, educated and elite is irrelevant to whether or not one may form political opinions, write articles and advocate for a position. For that reason, it is pointless to refer to these features.

But there is one question I would like to ask:

Readers will recall in “Reemergence of Marriage” I showed a distinct deceleration in the rate of increase in the non-marital birth ratio (ROI-NMBR)^[1] which occurred in conjunction with the American debate for Same Sex Marriage. This deceleration is what one would expect to occur if Americans responded to the twin themes of responsible parenthood and long term commitment aired by advocates of same sex marriage. Borrowing the words Dr. Stanley Kurtz used to explain a similar conjunction between changes in the Dutch ROI-NMBR and the Dutch campaign for Same Sex Marriage, I observe, “The conjunction is no coincidence”.

Mr. Katz disputed my assertion that the debate over SSM influenced the American trend. Observing that my causal mechanism relied on the theme of responsible parenthood, he requested I provide evidence of this theme. Pointing out that Dr. Kurtz has devoted lots of ink to this subject, he suggested I should also devote plenty to address the possibility that other factors may have caused the noticeable transition. Finally, he requested I demonstrate the distinct transition is statistically significant and occurs at the appropriate time to support the linkage.

In my first response to Mr. Katz, I provided evidence of that advocates emphasized the important ways children benefit when their parents marry. In my second, I demonstrated the transition cannot explained by the factors Mr. Katz suggested.

In this article, I will show the data are statistically significant and the transition occurs very near the time one might expect it to. Since the transition is statistically significant, supports the causal mechanism I have suggested and cannot be explained by theories proposed by opponents of same sex marriage, I believe it is up to those who wish to argue that same sex marriage has not strengthened marriage in the US to provide a more plausible reason for the last nine years of American marital revitalization.”^[2]

The Third Criticism
I will now address the idea that the transition did not occur near the onset of the national debate for SSM. Quoting Mr. Katz:

I interpret this to mean either:

1. The deceleration in the out of wedlock birth rate occurred too late to attribute it to the Hawaii ruling in favor of same sex marriage,
2. The change in the slope I indicate is not statistically significant or
3. Both.

Whether or not Mr. Katz intended both, people who read his column may understand him to mean both.^[4] So, I believe it is important to rebut both, earnestly.^[5]

Timing: I will first address the suggestion that the change in slope occurred to late to be associated with the Hawaii Court Case.

As I stated in my first article responding to Mr. Katz, the deceleration in the NMBR, first became evident in 1995. Is this too late to attribute it to the 1993 Hawaii Court case?

At first glance it may appear so; some might overlook the 9 month gestation period for humans.^[6] So, it may surprise them to learn that some women pregnant on the day of the May 1993 court decision would not give birth until 1994. Thus, we would expect the 23 year trend in the ROI-NMBR to persist through a portion of 1994. To better illustrate these two events, I shifted the line indicating the Hawaii court ruling to suggest its May date, and added another to note the end of the 9 month gestation period. Examining the graph, we see that no matter what we postulate about the effect of the court ruling on personal behavior, one would expect the ROI-NMBR to follow the pre-Hawaii court case trend until March, 1994. View image.

One might, however, have expected a drop in the birth ratio during 1994 due to an effect during the final months. Examining the data, it appears this did not occur. Why not? There are two possible reasons:

1. There may be a data tabulation error for 1994.
2. People tend to delay; their behavior may not change instantaneously.

I consider the delay theory the more likely of the two possibilities. However, it is not possible distinguish these two based on the data I have obtained. Consequently, I will consider both possibilities, beginning with the less likely one.

To see whether the 1994 data point looks suspicious, I calculated the ROI-NMBR by subtraction.^[7] The derived values are shown in Figure 2. Note, the ROI-NMBR achieves a maximum of 1.6% in 1994 and a minimum of -0.4% in 1995; both are outliers. Examining further, the 1.6% increase in 1994, although a maximum, does not seem remarkably large. An increase of 1.5% was achieved in 1992, and increases of 1.4% had been achieved in the late 80’s. So, it is possible that the increase simply represents a continuation of the pre-Hawaii trend, and is consistent with the “delay” theory.

The 1995 minimum, however, falls well outside the ranges exhibited by both the pre or post-Hawaii data sets. It is not uncommon to suspect error when one observes distant outliers. The fact that outliers representing both a maximum and a minimum are side by side further supports the idea of error. The data shown on Figure 2 are obtained by subtraction, if one data point was erroneously tabulated or recorded, that would be the cause of the two adjacent outliers, one a maximum and one a minimum.

Figure 2: The ROI-NMBR for years 1970-2002

Since the side-by-side outliers look suspicious, it is worthwhile to consider the possibility the entry for 1994 is incorrect,^[8] particularly, in light of the “delay” theory I have yet to address. Let us assume 1994 data point is flawed, the pre-Hawaii trend in the ROI-NMBR persisted through March 1, 1994 and the post-Hawaii trend applied during the remaining months of 1994. Removing the 1994 data point, and recalculating, we would expect the cumulative two year change in the NMBR to be 1.2%.^[9] Interestingly, if we add to obtain the increase from Jan 1, 1994 (1.6%) to Dec 31, 1995 (-0.4%), we obtain 1.2%. This is exactly the value calculated assuming people responded immediately to the ruling!

The agreement is likely a complete coincidence. It is, in fact, amazing given the year to year statistical variability expected in the ROI-NMBR even during stable periods. However, if the 1994 data point is wrong, this agreement suggests the possibility that couples young and old changed their behavior very quickly after the Hawaii court ruling!

Now let us consider the more likely possibility the pre-Hawaii trend persisted because people did not change their behavior immediately. Is this plausible?

We know the Hawaii court case was reported and discussed nationally. However, just as most political discussion of the Goodridge case came after the ruling, the bulk of political discussion also came after the Hawaii ruling. In any case, some Americans might not listen to the news every evening; some might only hear of a topic, and the pro-family theme aired by advocates of SSM until after their friends mention the issue at summer barbecues, or church pancake breakfasts. So, it is possible many did not become aware of the Hawaii ruling for several months.

If people delayed their response for these reasons, it seems plausible to me the ROI-NMBR would not decelerate in 1994. The fact that the 1994 birth ratio follows the pre-Hawaii trend simply implies people persisted in their pre-Hawaii beliefs and behaviors for a number of months. However, is the explanation that American’s might not respond instantaneously plausible to others?

Possibly. It seems at least one person has postulated the tendency of people’s behavior to lag judicial rulings. In “Scandinavia by the Numbers”^[10], explaining the delay in Danish marital behavior, Mr. Katz suggests this “delay theory”:

There we have it! It takes time before people change their attitudes about marriage. Just as people don’t divorce the day after a judicial ruling, cohabiting couples might not rush to churches and marry; they might spend some time internalizing the decision before making a marital commitment. Afterwards, they might spend time planning their wedding. Other cohabiting couples who after some months of discussion decide to part might wait until their leases run out. During this transition period, some women may find themselves unintentionally pregnant. If their pre-Hawaii attitude persists, the couple may choose not to marry and these births will contribute to the 1994 out of wedlock birth statistics.

So, just as I suggested when I discussed the effect of The Welfare Reform Act, one might expect a delay of several months beyond the 9 month gestation period before the Hawaii ruling affects American’s behavior. If Americans did wait several months, 1994 data would not reflect the effect of the 1993 ruling. Instead, 1995 is the first year when one should expect to detect the effect of the Hawaii ruling on the NMBR. That is the year when the change first becomes visible in the data.

Since the transition occurred the first year when one likely expects to detect it, I think it is fair to say the transition was “almost immediate”!

Statistical significance
Mr. Katz is correct to mention I failed to show the transition in the ROI-NMBR is statistically significant.^[11] I will now remedy this deficiency.

To evaluate statistical significance, I compared the mean ROI-NMBR for the “pre-Hawaii” and “post-Hawaii” groups; these are 0.9%/year and 0.2% /year. These two values differ by a factor of 4.5. Dr. Kurtz claims a factor of 2 change in the Dutch ROI-NMBR and deems that meaningful. So, I assume a change by a factor of 4.5, which is more than twice a large, is agreed to be meaningful.

Nevertheless, the fact the difference in the two means is large does not mean the difference is statistically significant. To test for significance, I performed a two-tailed T-Test. The difference in the means to be significant to the 99.995% confidence level; this is greater than the 95% confidence level generally thought to imply statistical significance.^[12]

So, we seen the deceleration in the ROI-NMBR is strong, statistically significant, and is reflected as soon after the 1993 pro-SSM Hawaii judicial ruling as might be thought plausible.

Conclusion
I believe I have addressed Mr. Katz’s criticisms and shown that the correlation between deceleration in the ROI-NMBR and the campaign for SSM is, indeed, “very good”. The deceleration in the American out of wed lock birth rate is both large in magnitude, and statistically significant. The slight delay noted by Mr. Kats is expected because of the 9 month gestation period and the additional delay theory proposed by Mr. Katz. Because of this delay, one would expect 1995 would be first year when the birth rate might be unambiguously affected by the 1993 Hawaii ruling. That is precisely when the transition became evident, and supports my contention that the transition occurred after the Hawaii Ruling which brought the pro-family pro-commitment message of those advocating legalized same sex marriage to national attention. American’s listened and responded.

Who has the burden of proof? It is now up to the opponents of same-sex marriage to show why we should believe them when they say that same-sex marriage will weaken American marriage as a social institution. Why should we weaken the linkage between parenthood raising children by legally prohibiting some parents from marrying? Children of gay parents deserve the legal protection of parents united in marriage.

Read the rest of this entry »

As readers are aware from my recent articles, I contend the campaign for same sex marriage has lead to a deceleration in the rate-of-increase in-the-non-marital birth ratio [ROI-NMBR]^[1] in the United States. As I see it, Dr. Stanley Kurtz and I agree on one thing: there is a causal link between SSM and the ROI-NMBR.

It has come to my attention that this causal link is disputed.

In this article, I will provide hyperlinks to arguments for and against the causal link. I also invite readers to participate in a poll.

I will begin by presenting the case supporting the causal link. First, Dr. Kurtz, who has earned a Ph. D. in social anthropology from Harvard, says there is a causal link between SSM and ROI-NMBR. If such an elite educated person says a causal link exists, must it not be so?

Others also believe it. As recently as May 30, three days days after I published my first article showing the causal link for the American data, and two days after it was picked up by MarriageDebate.com, Maggie Gallagher, a white, educated elite opponent of SSM appeared to endorsed the cause and effect relationship and provided a supporting theory, saying:

Shortly afterward, a blogger Michael Sellitto posting at MarriageDebate.com also agreed there could be a causal link, writing:

I believe that summarizes the arguments in favor of the causal link. Let us now turn to arguments against it.

Almost as soon as I posted my first article in this series, Julian said

Later on, Rachel Ann noticed I buried Julian’s observation deep in the footnotes of this article. Probably suspecting^[a] my intention to evade Julian’s comments, she posted to endorse his point of view. This raised the visibility of the idea. Afterwards both Trish Wilson^[b] and Don P. posted in support of Julian.

How can one fail to be suprised by all this support despite the fact that Julian has expended very little ink to support his claim. Certainly he has devoted much less ink than either Dr. Kurtz, Mr. Katz or I have!^[2]

These are not the only critics of the proposed causal link. Since my first article appeared, I have discovered people posting on other blogs also believe there is no causal link.

These include:

• Andrew Sullivan who ridiculed the idea there could be cause and effect relationship.
• Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty, who implied that Dr. Kurtz and I might be guilty of data mining. (Jason was kind enough to note that my American Data has a much more noticeable kink than Dr. Kurtz’s Dutch Data which has no apparent kink.)
• Jari Koskiku “I live in Finland and I cannot see how gay registred partnerships have had any kind of effect on how straight people view marriage. None. There is not enough evidence to say to what extent gay civil unions strenghten the concept of marriage, but there is enough evidence that the reasons for changes in the institution of marriage stem from somewhere else.” and
• Mark Becker suggests:
  As much as I appreciate Stanley Kurtz’s attempts to look at what’s happening in Europe now for some sign of what SSM means for the future, I feel that it’s way too soon to be able to make any definitive statements of cause and effect.

  .

Most surprisingly of all, on June 4th, after my article appeared, Maggie Gallagher states:“Isolating the effects of legal changes using social science methods is difficult. If the mechanism is the cultural meanings of marriage, the consequences are likely to take a generation to uncover and they may be different in different countries.”^[3]

Examining all the arguments and counter arguments, I have decided the we must resolve this issue through the democratic process. You may all vote in this poll which I have set up at yahoogroups. ^[4]

Naturally, you may all campaign for your personal theory in the comments boxes. ^[5]

(Note: I made some editorial revisions to reflect comments.)
Read the rest of this entry »

Justin Katz of Dust in the Light. has responded to my post describing the deceleration in the rate of change in the US non-marital birth ratio and its relationship to the campaign for same sex marriage. My argument is analogous to that of Dr. Stanley Kurtz. Just as Dr. Kurtz argues that the acceleration in the rate-of-change in the Dutch non-marital birth ratio is caused by the Dutch campaign for same sex marriage, I argued the deceleration in the rate-of-change in the American non-marital birth ratio is caused by the American campaign for same sex marriage.

In my June 8 article, I listed the categories of flaws Mr. Katz identified. I also addressed one category of flaws.^[1] Today, I will address this second category of flaws:

I will consider three theories Mr. Katz suggested might explain the data. These are:

• The beneficial effects of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which might lower the non-marital birth ratio.

• The “boost” phenomena which might lower the non-marital birth ratio.
• The tendency of campaigns for same sex marriage to raise the non-marital birth ratio, as Dr. Kurtz has speculated.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996

Mr. Katz suggested The Welfare Reform Act might explain the American Data:

Justin Katz is correct; I did not consider that the 1995 deceleration might have resulted from The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed into law in late August. Women who became pregnant the day the bill was signed would give birth in May 1997, contributing to the 1997 birth statistics. In any case, one might expect a somewhat longer time lag. After all, it is possible that co-habiting couples might spend a few months deciding to marry and then a few more planning their wedding.

Consequently, the first full year when one would expect to note any effect of The Welfare Reform Act of on the birth statistics would be 1998. Any attempt to assess the impact of the legislation at an earlier date would be premature. In 1998, the non-marital birth ratio rose to 32. 8% after remaining at 32.4% for two years running.

To address my omission, I added passage of The Welfare Reform Act to my graph. The line between 1996 and 1997 denotes passage; the later line shows when women who became pregnant the day before the act was signed would have given birth.

Examining the graph, it appears unlikely The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 caused the decline in birth rates in 1995.

Read the rest of this entry »

Justin Katz of Dust in the Light. has responded to my post describing the drop in the US non-marital birthrate and its the relationship to the campaign for same sex marriage. Mr. Katz suggests my argument is flawed in these ways:

• Either a) I misstate the themes promoted by advocates of same sex marriage or b) I correctly state the themes, but pre-date these themes to some time before either the publication of Jonathan Rauch’s new book, the Goodridge case or the drop in the non-marital birth ratio.

• I fail to address three possible alternate reasons for the distinct drop in the rate of increase in the US non-marital birth ratio.
• Either the drop in the rate of increase in the US non-marital birth ratio is a) not distinctive, or b) it is distinctive, but it is not strongly associated with the key events in the US campaign for SSM.
• I did not expend as much ink as Dr. Kurtz who explains why the campaign for same sex marriage could potentially effect on the non-marital birth ratio.

I think these criticisms are worth serious amounts of ink. I will address the first criticism in this article, and the other criticisms in later articles.

Mr. Katz suggests I misstate the principal themes of the campaign for same sex marriage. More precisely, he thinks I define the themes too narrowly. Mr. Katz is correct to believe that misstating principal themes, defining them either too broadly or too narrowly or predating them would flaw my argument. ( I believe Dr. Kurtz entirely misstates theme of the campaign for same sex marriage; that is one of the flaws in his argument.)

However I think I state correct themes that are neither overly broad narrow nor anachronistic. To support my claim, I will address these three important questions:

To begin, let us compare the themes Mr. Katz and I suggest.

• I believe that the right to make a lifelong commitment and provide a safe haven for families with children rank among the principal themes of the campaign for SSM.

• Mr. Katz suggests “the principle theme of advocacy for SSM has been to assert their rights to marry”.

Our themes differ, yet I do not think his theme is totally incorrect; it is only too broad. It begs the question: to marry and then what?

Nevertheless I must clarify.

The way I define a “principal theme” is related to how I categorizes the numerous campaigns operating simultaneously under an umbrella or parent campaign. In this context, the campaign for same sex marriage falls under the parent campaign for gay rights. I see the assertion of the right to marry as the one of the principal themes of the parent campaign for gay rights. Other themes in the parent campaign include the right to nondiscrimination in employment and housing, and decriminalizing gay sex. Looked at individually, many of the themes of the parent campaigns are themselves campaigns, which we could call child campaigns. Each child campaign has its own principle themes.^[1]

The campaign for gay marriage as a child campaign, has its own principal themes which distinguish the child campaign from the parent campaign. Promoting long term commitment and responsible parenthood number among the principal themes of those advocating legalized same sex marriage.

Evidently, Mr. Katz sees the themes I identify this way as being overly narrow. I believe substituting the themes of parent or umbrella campaign as overly broad.

Right or wrong, I will continue to classify themes of campaigns in this way.^[2] When evaluating the effect of the campaign for same sex marriage on the nonmarital birth ratio I think it is foolish to focus on the broader theme of the parent campaign. To do so would suggest “the right to marry” and “the right to nondiscrimination in housing” have equal potential effects on the non-marital birthrate.

Interestingly, like me, Dr. Kurtz does not suggest the theme of the parent campaign for gay rights as the theme for SSM. Dr. Kurtz seems to think one of the principal themes of those advocating same sex marriage is the idea that parents should not be married, or that unmarried parents are preferable to married parents.^[3] Right or wrong, his theme and mine are equally narrow, and being excessivly narrow is the flaw Mr. Katz finds in my choice of theme.

Since Dr. Kurtz suggested theme and mine are equally narrow Mr. Katz must also find Dr. Kurtz’s theme overly narrow. If Mr. Katz thinks this, I have not yet read Mr. Katz’s criticism.

While I am addressing this Dr. Kurtz’s theme, I want to comment on what I see as its flaw. It is simply incorrect. Better expressions of the theme include this one: “Preventing a loving same sex couple from making a legal commitment to each other can only hurt their children.”⁸ One of the reasons it hurts their child, and the children of heterosexual couples, is that denying a parents the right to marry communicates the idea that it is acceptable for parents raising children to remain unmarried. Say this often enough, and make it force of law, and the child might actually believe it!

So far, my difference of opinion with Dr. Kurtz seems to me substantive, that with Katz seems to be semantic or at least related to our different methods of classifying campaigns. Possibly, it is simply that he prefers to list extremely broad themes.

I will now provide evidence the themes I suggest are discussed by advocates of SSM and that these themes predate the downturn in the rate of increase in the nonmarital birth ratio which occurred during the mid nineties.

First, let us examine the theme of love and commitment. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent advocate of same sex marriage said:

Jonathan Rauch constantly emphasizes long term responsibility, stability, fidelity and commitment. One could also read newspaper columns and find all sorts of quotes from recent brides and grooms telling us they married to express their love and commitment.

Now, let us examine the child welfare theme. Because Katz specifically state that Sullivan and Rauch, both prominent advocates of SSM do not discuss the welfare of children I will provide links to some of their web articles.^[4]

Sullivan discussed the need to unite gays and lesbians with their own children, the importance of marriage as a place to nurture children, and the benefit of providing a stable home headed by a married couple in at least three articles available on the web, published in 1989 ^[5], 1997 ^[6], 1998.^[7] While promoting his book, Jonathan Rauch observes “…. marriage is the best environment for raising children and wonders why conservatives don’t seem to consider the 28 percent of homosexual couples with children.” He reiterates the importance of marriage to children here.; he laments the trend toward unmarried cohabitation particularly when children are involved here.

Of course, even less well known advocates discuss the importance of marriage. Recently, we have seen the explosion of political blogs; some address the topic of same sex marriage. Surely, Justin Katz has read posts by Gabriel Rosenberg who Mr. Katz often debates in his own blog? Likely, Mr. Katz has noticed the child oriented theme at “Daddy, Pappa and Me”?

Katz’s claim that advocates of SSM do not discuss the idea that legalized same sex marriage would benefit children is simply wrong. They have been advocating this before the nineties began, and still do. Given the evidence that advocates of think we should legalize same sex marriage to because it benefits children, one can wonder where the highly educated, white, Dr. Kurtz, who is employed at an elite think tank, Mr. Katz or other white, educated elites, developed any other idea.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ronald Reagan died today. This is CNN’s write-up. I was born the year Reagan was reelected and so don’t remember much about his Presidency; my only exposure to him has been through history books and retrospective articles. Honestly, I don’t think I liked him and his policies very much, but hope that his passing was peaceful, nonetheless. Alzheimer’s is a difficult disease to cope with for both family members and medical staff; I wish no ill on any of them.

Update: I addressed the issue of whether or not this post was meant as hagiography in the comments section. That aside, I found a couple of good pieces on the pieces of Reagan’s legacy you’re likely not to hear about in the next few days: “Reagan’s Liberal Legacy” by Joshua Green from the Washington Monthly — which has been linked to by a few others, as well — and, most especially, “Ronald Reagan 1911-2004″ by Steve Gilliard from his blog.

This weekend my significant other and I decided to take advantage of the three-day weekend and took a vacation to Dinosaur National Monument in Vernal, Utah. Seeing as how my car is a piece of crap that I’m hesitant to drive around town, we loaded up her car, a 2000 Honda Insight, and set off at the requist time that all travellers must leave: four hours later than originally intended.

I was worried as we left town that we’d run into a money crunch because of the rising gas prices. We’re not exactly well-off, especially with my still being unemployed, and so with gas prices going up and up and up this summer I was concerned that gas would suck us dry. I shouldn’t have been worried; J.’s car is a hybrid and managed to average 66.7 MPG over the course of the trip.

Doing the math that comes out to: 66.7 MPG over 1,000 miles at $2.15 per gallon, thus 14.9 gallons at $32.23 for the entire trip. I should have been more worried about food. (Incidentally, a single serving of Triscuits ‘ six crackers ‘ contains 4.5 grams of saturated fat. How do they get so much saturated fat in there? Do they cook the Triscuits inside of a pig? And, really, how can they get away with advertising that ‘low in saturated fat’? Does 4.5 grams per serving sound high, or am I just too used to health food?)

[Spelling error in the post title corrected. How embarassing; I feel like I was just caught with my fly down while on stage.]

Subtitle: No Dutch Treat for US

Only a few years ago, many lamented the sky high American illegitimacy rate as a wretched example for the western hemisphere. Somehow, Americans had managed to combine capitalists values and a shockingly high illegitimacy rate. To be sure, many Americans married, but many American marriages also crumbled. Often, parents decided not to marry anyone at all.

Today, the family is reviving in the US. In the mid-1990’s, the sky high American illegitimacy rate seems to have ended its mad ascent after nearly tripling in the years between 1970 and 1993. Yet, since the campaign to legalize same sex marriage has built up steam, the rate of increase in non-marital births has slowed dramatically. This is no coincidence.

A careful look at the campaign for same sex marriage in the US shows that its principle themes are to promote responsible parenthood and long term commitment. Advocates of same sex marriage like Jonathan Rauch and court cases like Goodridge vs. Massachusetts stressed both themes. This important message seems to be getting out; American parents seem about to reverse the long term trend of forgoing marriage.

Examine the evidence. The figure below shows the relationship between out-of-wedlock births and the campaign for same sex marriage. Isolated discussions of same sex marriage began in the mid-80s and mounted slowly. Gays made local gains in 1989 when San Francisco and New York extended domestic partnership benefits to same sex couples. Naturally, local victories in only two cities had little effect on the nationwide illegitimacy rate. However, with these local victories, discussions began to gain steam. Nationwide conversation took off in 1993, when the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii ruled that denying same sex marriage violated due process.

(Click on image to see larger version)

The impact of nationwide discussions was almost immediate. Obviously, unmarried women already pregnant at the time of the ruling still bore their illegitimate babies. But in 1995, we see the illegitimacy rate dropped for the first time in decades. In the following years, recognition of the importance of marriage for everyone spread to other states. In 1999, Vermont’s Supreme Court ruled that the benefits of marriage must be extended to same sex partners. Soon Vermont offered domestic partnership, and the State of California passed “The Declaration of Domestic Partners”.

The effect of all this discussion of same sex marriage, with its emphasis on responsible parenthood, and long term commitment, has been stunning and persistent! It has also surprised some conservative opponents of same sex marriage. Despite aggressive educational programs like “Just Say No” implemented during the Reagan administration, the non-marital birth rate had increased steadily at a rate of 0.8% per year for more than two decades. Yet, as gay rights advocates began to describe the numerous benefits of marriage for everyone, we see prospective parents began to value marriage once again. The rate of increase in non-marital births has dropped to only 0.2%, or one fourth its previous value. It was more than Nancy Reagan could have ever wished for!

There is hope yet. If we continue discussing same sex marriage, and enacting it more widely, Americans may once again remember that people raising kids had best be married.
Read the rest of this entry »

In a curious side-note to this year’s political and artistic riggamarole, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival has awarded the Palme d’Or to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. I’m curious to see what sort of comment and criticism this receives.

(Story via Ain’t It Cool News.)

If you haven’t heard about it yet, Google will soon be launching its own free internet e-mail service along the lines of Hotmail or Yahoo! Mail but, ostensibly, better. As part of my having recently signed up for an account with Blogger, I was offered an opportunity to test Google’s Beta version of Gmail. (A side note about that: I read a news item this evening about how Gmail accounts are being sold on eBay for around $70. Why are people scrambling to buy Gmail accounts? Why not just stop by Blogger? Or, for once, am I actually special?) As I’m still looking for a good e-mail service provider, I thought that this would be a good opportunity to experiment with the new service.

So, here’s how you can help: Send me e-mail at pink.dream.poppies - at - gmail.com. Also, comment on this thread as all comments to posts I’ve written automatically get kicked over to my mailbox. I don’t mean to mail bomb me with a million two word messages, just send me little notes to tell me how wonderful I am. It’ll make my day. Also, supposedly, GMail has a 1,000 MB storage capacity per account, so why don’t a few of you send along you favourite MP3 of the moment. I don’t know if I’ll actually receive any 3-5 MB messages, but it’s worth a shot.

Happy mailing. I’ll post comments and observations on their mail system as they occur to me.
Read the rest of this entry »

As the war crimes at Abu Ghraib continue to come to light (for those of you who don’t know, the short version is this: photos have been published of six American soliders, male and female, torturing Iraqi prisoners) I’ve seen more than a few comments along these lines, from Bitch Has Word:

Or this one from the comments at Billmon:

I have to admit that I’ve been surprised every time I’ve encountered this sentiment, and yet I’ve also been not surprised at all.

I think comments like these come about because of one of two ideas: the idea that women don’t do this sort of thing, and the idea that women should be less inclinded to do this kind of thing because it is so often done to them. Both of these views are pervasive in our society, particularly the first; torture and war are supposed to be the domain of men, while women are supposed to be too weak-willed for, too empathic for, or just better than that sort of thing.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. Women can be every bit as nasty and brutish as men; evil is hardly the sole domain of a single gender. Women turned Jews over to the Nazis; women owned and beat, or had beaten, slaves; women have been spies, traitors, murders, and thieves. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that, when put in a situation where there was, apparently, an implicit or explicit order to extract information from people through whatever means possible that women should become torturers just as men do. There’s no real reason to believe that they wouldn’t. As BHW pointed out in her post, “I guess the mob mentality kicked in for her, too.”

One thing that seems particularly surprising to some is the sexual nature of the torture and humilitation, particularly that a woman would engage in torture and humiliation of a sexual nature. Women may be more often threatened by and victims of sexual assault and violence, but this hardly means that they are immune to commiting such acts themselves when placed in a position where they have absolute authority. In much the same way that children who have been abused can grow up to be parents who abuse their children, the sons and daughters of alcoholics can become alcoholics themselves, and even the friends who stab their friends in the back despite having had this done to them — in much the same way as these things can happen, so too can women become the perpetrators of sexual assault when placed in the just right (really, just wrong) position of being able to commit them.

There isn’t a doubt in my mind that it is a good thing that women are (slowly) being allowed to join the armed forces in (slowly) whatever way they see fit, but at the same time I think that we are all going to have to (unfortunately) become used to seeing situations like this one. We appropriately bristle at the suggestion that one should be surprised when a woman performs an act or heroism, bravery, or strength; why should we be so surprised then when a woman performs or participates in an atrocity?

(BHW link via Feministe.)

Update: Just to be clear on something: I’m not saying or meaning to suggest that torture, or even war, is an okay thing and that we should just get used to women participating in it. On the contrary, we should be shocked and appalled that any person of either sex thinks that this is ever an appropriate way to treat any other human being.

[Edited to include something I meant to include when I first wrote it.]