For folks who are following the Scandinavian debate, this post by Bjørn Stærk (from back in February) will be of interest.

He goes on to point out that even if SSM caused some trends in Scandinavia - which hasn’t even come close to being proven - that still doesn’t tell us much about what will happen in the USA, which is culturally and legally very different.

I recently posted “It’s the economy”, a rather lengthy article showing the association between Dutch unemployment and the rising non-marital birthrate in the Netherlands. I also showed the non-marital birthrates in numerous European countries rose as quickly and even more quickly than those in the Netherlands. This indicates the rate of change in the Netherlands does not stand out from changes in Europe as a whole.

In a response, Dr. Stanley Kurtz fixated on my discussion of Bulgaria. Previously, he claimed Bulgaria doesn’t count because Bulgarians have the lowest access to birth control in the Europe. I showed they have the highest rate of birth control use in the world. Kurtz now claims the fact Bulgarians use birth control at the highest rate in the world is irrelevant. Why? Because, poor teen Gypsy girls (those of the Roma minority) do not have access to contraception. Their behavior has caused a nationwide explosion in the Bulgarian nonmarital birth rate. In contrast, he says, the rise in the Netherlands is due to women choosing cohabitation over marriage (as a result of legalized same sex marriage.)

Can’t you just hear Cher singing “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves” in the background?

I do not wish to give the impression that my argument hinges on Bulgaria; it does not. Even without considering Bulgaria, there are plenty of European countries whose non-marital birth rate rose as rapidly, or much more rapidly, than in the Netherlands. The rise in all those countries can be explained by factors other than legalized same sex marriage. In fact, Dr. Kurtz suggested economic distress contributed to the rise in many of these other countries, including Bulgaria. Yet, he ignores economic distress in the Netherlands. Logically, economic distress would be expected to have similar effects in any two countries. If it explains rising nonmarital births in European countries, including Bulgaria, then the greater severity of distress in Bulgaria explains why the Bulgarian out of wedlock birth rate rose more quickly than in other European countries, including the Netherlands. My argument is thus entirely consistent.

Still, it’s kind of fun to address the notions, and evidence, in Dr. Kurtz’s response.

Dr. Kurtz provided two hyperlink references to support his teen Gypsy girl theory. One is an anectdote posted on a geocities web page describing the wretched conditions of poor married and unmarried mothers in Bulgaria. The article provides absolutely no statistics explaining why the nonmarital birthrate has exploded.

Dr. Kurtz also refers to a report by Jaklina Tzvetkova Anguelova written in 2000. That report mentions that some of its contents are based on preliminary analysis of available data; some information is based on contents of earlier reports. The specific items Dr. Kurtz picks out are not based on Anguelova’s analysis or data, but are speculations cited from reports written well before Anguelova performed her analysis.

More recently, Anguelova wrote a report containing conclusions based on the final analysis of data collected by the Bulgarian government. It is available here: Anguelova 2001.

On page 11 you will find that Anguelova, after examining the data and reviewing the literature, attributes the growing non-marital birthrate to “consensus marriage”, i.e. cohabitation. In a 2004 study, The South Eastern European Legal Initiative (SEELINE) also attributes the rise in non-marital births to rising Bulgarian cohabitation. How much cohabitation do we find in Bulgaria relative to the Netherlands? Batalova and Cohen reported that a larger number of adults cohabit in Bulgaria than in the Netherlands. Of adults surveyed in 1994, 18.1% of Bulgarians reported they had cohabited; in contrast, 15.1% of Dutch respondents reported they had cohabited. Yet, despite the greater prevalence of cohabitation in Bulgaria, Dr. Kurtz attributes the rising Dutch non marital birth rates to cohabitation, yet insists it has a negligible effect in Bulgaria!

Reading further in Anguelova, you will find she laments that no special statistics are available to describe the demographics of unmarried mothers. So the characteristics of unmarried mothers cannot be described. The fact that Anguelova specifically states she cannot describe the characteristics of unmarried mothers because no data are available suggest the older speculations taken from dated reports by others were not based on reliable data. (Many others have reported strong prejudice against the tiny Roma population, noting that Bulgarians often unfairly blamed the tiny Roma population for nationwide problems. Published speculations have sometimes been based on nothing more than prejudice.)

In any case, members of the Roma minority account for 2.6% of the Bulgarian population. Can anyone really believe the nationwide explosion in the nonmarital birth rate is dominated by their behavior? Could the 18.1% of adults who had cohabited all be members of the tiny Roma minority? Could nonmarital birthrates possibly rise to 42.9% because of the behavior of 2.6% of the population?

As in “Dutch Debate,” Dr. Kurtz suggests that women in Bulgaria cannot avoid giving birth. He does this by substituting the term “contraception” for “birth control” and then providing some statistics on contraception to explain lack of birth control. As I showed in “It’s the economy”, he used this same verbal trick in “Dutch Debate”. The communist government did indeed limit contraception. In Bulgaria, abortion has always been, and unfortunately still is, a widely used method of birth control. (The abortion rate is falling as contraception becomes available.) Abortion is available to all Bulgarian women, married, unmarried, young, old and even members of the tiny Roma population. (Interestingly, the anecdote Dr. Kurtz cited describes conditions in a major hospital that acts as a combined maternity ware and abortion facility; this highlights abortion’s widespread availability in Bulgaria.)

Even when trying to side step the issue of birth control by substituting contraception statistics, Dr. Kurtz makes unsupported claims. He now claims that unmarried women have more limited access to contraception than married women. Yet, Klijzing, who Kurtz cited in “Dutch Debate”, indicated that married women in Bulgaria have much greater “unmet contraceptive needs” than unmarried women! (Klijzing noted that all Bulgarian women have access to birth control — in the form of abortion. Citing Klijzing to suggest Bulgarian women have limited access to birth control is another example of Dr. Kurtz substituting the term “contraception” for “birth control” in attempt to create the illusion that his thesis is supported by data. )

I think I have disproven Dr. Kurtz’s claims that Bulgaria is fundamentally different from the Netherlands because a) Bulgaria is filled with teen Gypsy girls and b) Bulgarians do not cohabit. Having done so, I need to emphasize that Bulgaria is not central to my argument. To draw away attention from other points, Dr. Kurtz tries to make it seem my argument hinges on Bulgaria. Next, Dr. Kurtz tries to say Bulgaria doesn’t count, because eliminating Bulgaria is necessary to support his thesis. In his attempt to find a reason to eliminate Bulgaria, Dr. Kurtz must repeatedly mislead readers by substituting statistics for contraception to describe access to birth control, which includes access to abortion. He further “buttresses” his argument by claiming the explosive rise in the Bulgarian nonmarital birth rate– to 42.9% –is due to the behavior of the tiny Roman minority, which makes up 2.6% of the Bulgarian population. To blame the problem on the Roma population he must ignore revised information in more recent reports by the very expert he cited.

Dr. Kurtz’s verbal, logical and statistical sleight of hand, accomplished by substituting terminology and omitting numbers may trick some. That he must rely on these sorts of tricks testifies to the weakness of his argument.

In his most most recent article “Dutch Debate” Dr. Kurtz does three things:

1. Reiterates his theory that the campaign for same sex marriage has caused marriage rates to decline and out of wedlock births to rise in Scandinavia and in the Netherlands
2. Claims there are data to support his theory.
3. Tries to refute Dr. Lee Badgett’s statistics which clearly contradict his theory.

It would take more than one article to illustrate the huge volume of distortions and outright errors in “Dutch Debate”. I will not attempt to do so in one. Instead I will focus on those errors associated with Dr. Kurtz’s interpretation of the data describing the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate in the Netherlands. Dr. Kurtz described these data in “Going Dutch”.

Read the rest of this entry »

As far as I am aware, Prof. Eugene Volokh did not participate in Alas A Blog’s “Poll: Cause and Effect”. If he did not, his opinion would not have been reflected in our results.

As I am indulgent, I will accept his late vote. It is clear he does not believe correlation equals causation.¹ This means my position that Same Sex Marriage can cause changes in the the non-marital birth ratio and these can easily be seen in the data. now has only 1 vote out of 9 cast. (It previously had 1 vote out of 8 cast.)

My only consolation is that this outcome suggests people also don’t believe Dr. Kurtz.
Read the rest of this entry »

UMASS economist M. V. Badgett has released a “discussion paper” examining the evidence from Scandinavia and the Netherlands - available in both html and pdf formats. You can also read a short summary of the paper’s conclusions here.

In essence, the evidence is consistant with the common-sense idea that same-sex marriage has no impact on straight marriage. The vast majority of heterosexuals deciding whether or not to marry, aren’t basing their decision on if same-sexers have legal recognition of their relationships.

The paper also makes this point, about how heterosexual marraiges are even less likely to be affected in the US:

Incidently, folks interested in the statistics and social-science side of the SSM debate should check out Professor Badgett’s site, which is full of interesting papers.

Recently, in an NRO article carried at MarriageDebate.com, Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas) explained why the US constitution needs to be amended to prohibit Same Sex Marriage. Belittling the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that enacting Same Sex Marriage would save the tax payers nearly a billion dollars a year, Brownback regurgitates misleading information from articles by NRO columnist Stanley Kurtz. Brownback also seems to suggest that legalized same sex marriage in Scandinavia caused out of wedlock births to increase, marriage rates to fall, and may aggravate the collapse of the entire social welfare system in all of Europe.

Possibly I exaggerate (but I don’t think so). So, let us examine his argument. It seems to consist of:

1. Marriage is good for society because “diminishes public expenditure on welfare, raises government revenues, and produces a more engaged, responsible citizenry.”
2. Europeans think marriage is about love and affection, whereas Americans think it’s about procreation. Moreover, believing marriage is about procreation prevents explosive growth in out of wedlock births.
3. In countries where same sex marriage and registered partnerships have been enacted, marriage has declined and family dissolution is endemic.
4. Same Sex Marriage may aggravate the European birth dearth or at least it won’t improve it. This will cause irreparable harm to their social welfare system.

I will address these ideas and show that Senator Brownback is incorrect on all but point 1. However, if point 1 is true, then we should enact SSM and realize the cost savings and other societal benefits of extending marriage. Moreover, when points 2-4 are corrected to reflect the actual effects of same sex marriage on marriage and society, we will find, if our goal is to benefit heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage should be enacted.

Let me address each idea in turn.

In a comment that ignored the main point of my recent article, Dr. Stanley Kurtz criticized people for ignoring some of his points. My main point was that the drop in the marriage rate in the Netherlands seems to be well explained by the fact that the Netherlands is in Europe. The marriage rate in the Netherlands tracked that in Europe throughout the nineties. It seems very odd to attribute this average variation in the marriage rate to the recent legalization of SSM in the Netherlands.

Overlooking this point, Dr. Kurtz chose to comment on a minor point I made. He objected to this observation:

If I understand Dr. Kurtz’s brief comments correctly, he considers it entirely implausible that a decline in the number of young people entering the marriage pool might have affected the Dutch marriage rate in the 90’s. He suggests the decline is due solely to the increase in cohabitation which is, evidently, caused by legalized SSM. As Dr. Kurtz does not elaborate further, I do not know whether he is denying the fact that there are fewer available couples, or whether he is denying the marriage rate would drop if there were fewer couples.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is aware that, all other social factors being equal, fewer available marriageable couples would mean fewer marriages. Consequently, I will address this question: Are there fewer couples of marriageable age in the Netherlands?

The answer is “yes”.

As most people have noticed, people tend to marry when they are young adults; so young adults might be thought to make up the “marriage pool” in any country. Examining Statitstics Netherland we see that in 1990, the young adult age group, consisting of those between 20-45 years old, made up 41% of the Dutch population. This fraction dropped to 36% by 2003. This 11% decrease in the marriage pool represents roughly two thirds of the 17% decrease in the Dutch marriage rate observed between 1991 and 2002. Consequently, based on this data, one might correctly observe the shift in demographics explains the drop in part. Possibly, it explains more than half the drop in the marriage rate.

It is also useful to note that examining the pool of 20-45 year olds, as I just did, may
underestimate the drop in available couples. On average, Dutch women tend to marry near the age of 27, or nearer the younger end of the 20-45 year old age range. I thought it might be useful to examine the age group between 25-30. Unfortunately, these were availabl at Statistics Netherlands. So, instead, I examined the birth rate statistics to get a rough estimate of the supply of “typical brides” during the 1990s and first few years in the 2000’s, the period Mr. Livestro and Dr. Kurtz are discussing.

I decided to make a rough estimate , reasoning as follows: One might expect the the supply of brides in 1990 to be strongly influenced by the birth rate in 27 years earlier, that is 1963; the supply of brides in 2002 would be affected by the birth rate in 1975. Between these years, Dutch birth rate dropped from 20.9/1000 persons to 13/1000 persons. This represents a 35% drop in potential 27 year old brides during the 90s. This number is twice the 17% drop observed in the marriage rate.¹

Taking the two estimates together, it seems plausible that the drop in the available brides might have a very significant effect on the drop in the marriage rate during the 90s!

Of course, other factors affect the decrease in the marriage rate. These include: the tendency to delay marriage, the tendency to remain single altogether, and the tendency to cohabit rather than marry. I failed to mention these in my previous article, and Dr. Kurtz seems perturbed by my omission. However, it is generally considered a relatively minor sin to name the major cause while omitting minor contributing causes. In contrast, Dr. Kurtz’s insistence on waving away the impact of demographics, which appears to have the major effect on the marriage rate, in favor of his pet theory that the decrease in the marriage rate is due to legalized same sex marriage suggests an obstinate refusal to look at existing data.

Yes, this blogger still believes that to suggest the Dutch decrease in the marriage rate is due to the Dutch legalization of SSM “boggles the mind”.

===== End notes:
[1] Clearly, more complicated analyses are necessary to determine a precise number of eligible couples. My intention is to only to show the drop in available couples is likely substantial. Birth data are available at OECD Fertility Data Baby Boom.

In a recent article in the NRO and carried at MD.com, Joshua Livestro give us his spin on the effect of SSM on marriage in the Netherlands. Suggesting we re-read two articles by Dr. Stanley Kurtz, Mr. Livestro provides a tiny new snippet of data. He tells us the marriage rate in the Netherlands has dropped, and suggests this is due to SSM.

It is worth examining this tiny nugget of data, and seeing whether or not it seems to support Mr. Livestro’s claim. I must warn the reader: It does not.

Let us begin with Mr. Livestro’s claim:

Yes. The marriage rate declined in the Netherlands over the last decade. However, it is very odd to suggest this is somehow caused by the campaign for same sex marriage. The figure below shows the marriage rate in the Netherlands, the European average^[1] and the average for Scandinavia.^[2]

Figure: Click to see slightly larger.

The marriage rate in the Netherlands closely matched the European average in 1991; it still does. Arguably, no country in Europe tracks the average more closely than the Netherlands. Many attribute the decrease in the European marriage rate, in part, to the aging population in Europe; it is plausible the aging Dutch population also has some effect. It boggles the mind that anyone would attribute the Dutch drop to legalized SSM.

However, Mr. Livestro prefers to suggest this:

On my graph, I noted two key events in the campaign for SSM in the Netherlands. At least to my eyes, the drop does not appear particularly connected to the legalization of either Registered Partnerships or Same Sex Marriage.^[3]

I guess Mr. Livestro can attribute this decrease to whatever he likes; I think it’s a coincidence. The campaign for same sex marriage in the Netherlands occurred just as the marriage rate was dropping all over Europe. The mailman delivered my mail just as the garbage man picked up my garbage. Unless I see evidence to connect the two things, one doesn’t seem to have much to do with the other.

Nevertheless, let us examine an intriguing possibility that Mr. Livestro attributes to Andrew Sullivan.

As those who have been read Stanley Kurtz’s various articles know, SSM, and “de facto” same sex marriage exist in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Interestingly, if we examine the average for Scandinavia, we see a slight rise in the marriage rate in those countries. Since this rise is totally at variance with the erosion we seen in the rest of Europe, it supports Andrew Sullivan’s premise that the campaign for SSM could strengthen the institution under the threat of countercultural erosion.

It’s rather interesting to go further. Examining the balance of the evidence, we see mounting support for Andrew Sullivan’s view:

• In Europe, the non-marital birth rate has risen less in Scandinavian countries with legal or de-facto SSM than in countries that without SSM. This comparison includes the Netherlands where the rise in illegitimacy hardly breaks out of the European mold. See “Tired”
• In Europe, the marriage rate has risen slightly in Scandinavian countries with legal SSM or defacto SSM. See figure above.
• In the US, the rate of increase in the non-marital birth ratio decelerated soon after the campaign for SSM went national. See “Reemergence of Marriage”. At a minimum, the campaign for SSM didn’t cause unmarried American women to rush out and get pregnant; in fact, it would appear many refrained!
• In the Netherlands, notwithstanding Mr. Livestro’s laments, the marriage rate has declined at the average rate for the rest of Europe. See figure above. So, SSM seems to have caused no harm.

So, based on fuller examination of the data than provided by either Dr. Kurtz or Mr. Livestro, SSM tends to benefit the institution of marriage. Sure, maybe it’s just a coincidence that the same sex marriage movement in Scandinavia and the US coincides with the improvements in the institution of marriage. As Mr. Livestro might say ( if he liked the data), “Maybe– but it would be an awfully big coincidence.”

Or maybe, Andrew Sullivan is right. If we legalize SSM, we will see marriage strengthened!⁴
Read the rest of this entry »

Thank you all for voting on “Cause and Effect”. Despite my valiant efforts, which paralleled Dr. Stanley Kurtz’s valiant efforts, it would seem that few “Alas” readers believe either one of us. Only 1 in 8 believe that SSM can cause changes in the non-marital birth ratio and these changes can be seen in the data. (Who’d have thought?)

Here are the final results:

Despite being trounced, I pledge this:

Despite this pledge, Alas readers may be spared the burden of reminding me that correlation does not mean cause and effect. Eve Tushnet, who is sick of hearing correlation doesn’t mean causation may also be spared. (See “Tired”)

Here’s why we may all be spared:

Dr. Kurtz seems to have ended his quest to waste all available ink penning articles in which he presents cherry picked data in an attempt to show that Same Sex Marriage has killed marriage in Scandinavia. Starting on Feb. 2, 2004, he published almost one a week at The NRO ; additional articles were published at The Weekly Standard. His last article on this topic appeared only a few days after I published mine showing “The American Data”.^[4]
Cause and Effect? Summer vacation? You decide!^[5]
Read the rest of this entry »

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.)

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 »

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 »

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 »

There is an interesting, and still ongoing, debate over if registered partnerships and gay marriages have killed off heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia.

The anti-marriage-equality case was best presented by Stanley Kurtz (who also opposes marriage-lite measures like civil unions), in a Weekly Standard article.

Both Galios and Andrew Sullivan responded to this article, and then Kurtz responded to Sullivan, and then there were the counter-responses; since I’m lazy, rather than recreating the links, I’ll just point you to this Galios post.

Darren Spedale also wrote a good response to Kurtz.

That was a little while ago; in what might be termed “round two” of the debate, economist M.V. Lee Badgett wrote a response to Kurtz. Then, Galios discussed Badgett’s article, expanding on some points that were relatively buried in Badgett’s piece. Kurtz responded to Badgett yesterday.

As if all that wasn’t enough to read, Kurtz has a new article in the current Weekly Standard, which Galios has commented on (and Justin Katz has in turn commented on Galios’ comment).

I’m sure there’s more on the way.