Gay and Lesbian Families: Examining the International Picture Introduction Overview Some on the far right claim that the experiences with same-sex marriage in the international community prove that same-sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage. This claim, however, is unsupported by the facts. Stanley Kurtz, of the Hoover Institution, insists, in an article for The Weekly Standard, that same-sex marriage has undermined the institution of marriage in Scandinavia. (Scandinavia includes the countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Much debate on this issue also has included the Netherlands.) An examination of the facts severely undermines Kurtz's assertion. Professor M.V. Lee Badgett from the University of Massachusetts Amherst recently authored a study examining Kurtz's conclusion. Click here to read the entire study. Among the report's key findings:
Studying the Statistics The fact that no Scandinavian country allows gays and lesbians to marry seems lost on Kurtz. It is true that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark allow gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil union like arrangements, but these arrangements are not marriage. Kurtz is comparing apples to oranges. Plus, he never proves a correlation between the societal trends he criticizes and the existence of partnership laws for gays and lesbians. In addition, some of these countries allow heterosexuals to form domestic partnerships as well. Opening these "marriage-like" institutions to heterosexuals could have some impact on the number of heterosexuals that marry. The bottom lines is that to even begin to ascertain what effects, if any, that same-sex marriage might have on the institution of marriage as a whole, allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a prerequisite. Even assuming that the unions available to gays and lesbians in Scandinavia are akin to marriage, no evidence exists showing that those relationships have caused the institution of marriage to decline. In addition, while it is probably too early to tell what effect same-sex marriage is having in the Netherlands and Belgium, there is no evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to marry has done anything to weaken the institution of marriage in those countries. Kurtz and others on the far right suggest that same-sex relationships are responsible for increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and declining marriage rates in Scandinavia. He asserts in the National Review Online that "marriage in both Scandinavia and the Netherlands is in deep decline." Yet, Kurtz never gives any evidence that would support a correlation between same-sex unions and any of the statistics he relies upon. He provides no evidence that shows any correlation, so his contention lacks merit. Professor Badgett further undermines Kurtz's claim by providing evidence showing a lack of correlation between same-sex unions and changes in marriage and out-of-wedlock birth rates. Professor Badgett points out that the Scandinavian approach to marriage and family had been changing years before these countries began recognizing same-sex relationships. "The decline of religious practice and belief, the rise of the welfare state, advances in contraception and abortion, and improving economic status of women – all long term trends in Scandinavia and the Netherlands – probably contributed" to the changes. Badgett supports her claim that same-sex relationships had no detrimental effect on marriage or family with statistical analysis. In demonstrating that same-sex unions did not affect the Scandinavian marriage rate, she points out in an article for slate.com that Danish marriage rates were declining until the early 1980s when they began a rebound. After the passage of the 1989 same-sex union law, heterosexual marriage rates continued climbing. In 2002, the marriage rate stood just below 7 per 1,000, a rate not matched since the early 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries show similar patterns. Statistical analysis shows the passage of same-sex union laws has not detrimentally affected the marriage rate at all. Badgett also uses statistical analysis to establish that same-sex unions did not detrimentally affect the non-marital birth rate either. The non-marital birth rate measures the percentage of children born to parents who were not married. During the 1970s, the non-marital birth rate rose from 11% to 33%. During the 1980s the rate continued climbing to 46%. After the 1989 passage of the same-sex union law, the rate actually stopped climbing and still stands at around 46%. In Norway, the statistics tell a similar story. In the 1980s, the non-marital birth rate rose from 16% to 39%. The increase continued through the 1990s after the passage of the 1993 same-sex union law, but has leveled off at around 50%. No serious observer could contend that the statistics indicate any causal relationship between same-sex union laws in Scandinavia and the non-marital birth rate. Most significantly, Badgett demonstrated that the non-marital birth rate rose just as much in the countries that did not offer gays and lesbians domestic partnerships as in the ones that did. During the 1990s, the non-marital birth rate increased from 36% to 44% in the partnership countries. In the non-partnership countries, the rate rose from 15% to 23%. Both groups saw an increase of 8%. Furthermore, the rate was increasing faster in non-partnership countries. These statistics completely undermine Kurtz's assertion that allowing gays and lesbians to enter into government-sanctioned relationships harms families. If the non-marital birth rate rose by the same rate, regardless of whether same-sex unions were recognized, then there can be no causal relationship. Even though the data contradict Kurtz's assertions, many Senators who backed the Federal Marriage Amendment quoted Kurtz in support of the Amendment. Based on Kurtz's work, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) pronounced from the Senate floor that "the countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples. Sixty percent of first-born children in those countries are now born out of wedlock." For the record, none of the three countries Santorum mentioned actually allows same-sex couples to marry, but they do offer varying forms of unions. Santorum's comments are misleading because they are based on Kurtz's faulty work linking gay and lesbian relationships to high non-marital birth rates. This debate is too important to be clouded with inaccurate and misleading information masquerading as statistical proof. Looking Ahead It is probably too early to determine what effect actual same-sex marriage is having on the institution of marriage overall in the Netherlands and Belgium. The Netherlands began allowing gays and lesbians to marry in 2001 and Belgium did so only in 2003. However, neither Kurtz nor anyone else on the far right can point to any data showing that allowing gays and lesbians to marry has adversely affected the institution of marriage in those countries. In fact, laws allowing gays and lesbians to marry in the Netherlands and Belgium have been a non-event for the most part. In the Netherlands, a liberal government, in power in 2001, passed the law opening marriage to gays and lesbians over the objections of conservative political parties. Now back in power, the conservatives have no plans to repeal the law. If allowing gays and lesbians to marry really was so harmful to the institution of marriage, surely a conservative government would make its repeal a priority. No matter what future data may show, it is clear based on all of the data available today that Kurtz and others are trying to blame gays and lesbians for demographic trends that began long before gay and lesbian relationships received any recognition. The statistical data contradict any correlation between same-sex unions and any undesirable trend in Scandinavian marriage and birth rates. |
