The End of Marriage in Scandinavia The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses.
by Stanley Kurtz
02/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 20
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA.
A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents.
Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood.
The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation.
Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened.
Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the "hysteria and irresponsibility" of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage.
Andrew Sullivan's Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles."
Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties.
Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.
Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children.
With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.
What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported).
Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed.
In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance.
Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.
posted on February 15, 2004 12:13:53 PM new
Linda your point is not valid since the same is happening in the United States already and gay marriage is not even legal here yet.
The marriage rate in the US had declined and the divorce rate has more than doubled in the past couple of decades. More and more couples are living together but not married. I posted the statistics earlier in this thread or in another one.
Furthermore, if straight people want to uphold the sanctity of marriage then you should be focusing your efforts to getting rid of shows like the Bachelor, Average Joe, Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire. How do shows like these promote the sanctity of marriage?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 15, 2004 12:25:06 PM new
Twelve,
You keep bring up the fact that only gays are deviants.
What about all the "straight married men" in gay chat rooms on the weekends looking for nookie while their wives are out shopping.
Explain to me how your case is valid. You can't say the gays are recruiting the straight men now can you when it is the straight men that are seeking out the gays.
And yes this does happen.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 15, 2004 04:16:51 PM new
Here's what really happened:
Twelvepole, not very tall, but tall enough to meet the minimum height requirements set by the US Navy, was allowed to enlist and serve as a seaman. He soon discovered that life onboard a ship at sea is solely populated by men. (In his day, it was.) And he also discovered that men at sea develop the same sort of urges they do when ashore. Due to his diminutive size, Twelvepole was targeted by the career seamen as a sex toy. He was abused relentlessly, yet he knew not where to turn for relief, since he'd been raised to think that if one 'did it' with a member of the same sex -- even against his will -- one was a 'queer'.
So, Twelvepole found a few other short pals (victims, all of them) on his ship and they'd go ashore together as a pack, heading not for women and romance, but directly to gay bars, where they could --as a gang -- beat the crap out of some gay guy they followed into the street after closing time.
What Twelvepole has not yet reconciled or understood is that those men who abused him on his ship are all probably married now. Theirs were not homosexual attacks at all; they were acts of sexual aggression, carried out on a physically weak man by much stronger men.
It is to be hoped that Twelvepole will one day seriously examine the wrongs he suffered in the Navy, and come to realize that
a) they weren't his fault
-and-
b) they weren't 'homosexual' acts, as he currently defines them
posted on February 15, 2004 07:02:57 PM new
Hi Linda, I've been out and about most of the day. I am a bit worn out, so forgive me if I dont address all the questions you put to me in your post. I will try to get back with you on it tomorrow, when I have a clearer and less fatigued mind and body. But if I dont, its because I dont really feel like pursuing this discussion further -at least not right now. going to bed. goodnight all.
posted on February 16, 2004 06:46:16 AM new
Linda,
in regards to the Patriot Act....
On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) into law. With this law we have given sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies and have eliminated the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that these powers were not abused. Most of these checks and balances were put into place after previous misuse of surveillance powers by these agencies,
Bush signed the law, it happened during his presidency not Clinton's. Whether the laws were on the books is irrelevant. He coul have changed them to protect our civil rights but he chose to ignore them.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 16, 2004 06:54:20 AM new
Linda you also stated:
Cause I've never read it in any of our federal papers, nor any states laws when they make reference to marriage. Nor in our US Constitution....Bill of Rights...any of the amendments.
If any of these mention gender at all.....they say husband and wife....bride and groom....man and woman....when referring to who's getting 'married'.
No where, in printed text, have I ever seen it man and man....woman and woman.
The Consitution provides equal treatment for all people. I have already provided two amendments of the Constitution where this is provided. Show me in the Constitution where it says only white people should marry white people or black people should only marry black people. Show me were it says interracial couple can marry. It does say any of this because it provides equal treatement for all people.
The Consitution does not define marriage at all so your views are based on religious interpretation. If you are going to use religion, then straight people should not be alloed to divorce since religion - at least the Catholic faith - tells us divorce is wrong.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 16, 2004 07:01:05 AM new
If people are against equal treatment for all it's citizens, then why not repeal the equal rights amendments given to blacks and women. Let's go back in time when the straight while male ruled everything. I am sure only then will they feel in power once again and not feel threatened.
Just like twelve I am sure there are people in this country that share his views regarding both of those groups.
Traditions can be changed....it only takes time.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 16, 2004 08:12:54 AM new
Logan, in my POV, you are wasting your breath if you think posting here is going convert Linda or Twelve, or millions of hetero's who disagree with you, to your way of thinking because you are throwing around constitutional jargon open to interpretation from the wording or lack thereof it.
Traditions can be changed..its only a matter of time
They dont WANT the tradition changed.
Don't you get that?
Who says they have to want that? Any more than them saying We WANT YOU guys to give up this gender bending behavior and get with the program. Whats your answer to that? Well,we dont WANT to and its not happening.
But people in this country still have the the right to say, I dont like that, I dont want it, and I dont want my children to have the impression this is wholesome, because I DONT THINK IT IS. You, Logon, WANT THEM to change what they think and feel because its suits your agenda. It doesnt really effect you for them to change their mind on it does it?
You keep comparing it to black civil rights. I dont think it compares at all. Gay people are not dis-permitted the right to use a public bathroom. They are free to do anything and everything they want, including having their relationships and families.
I think its still just a validation stamp wanted from the govt, from the heteros. But if you dont get it, does that in any way hamper or endanger such a committed relationship anyway? If so then you're saying this should be granted because its a lock-in excuse for a sham marriage, like heteros have?
Have your partnership contract, but dont take away the rights of the hetros to call marriage their institution of a man a woman, a mother a father and a family. Its not. What you guys want to call the same thing is different. Somebody needs to admit that.
posted on February 16, 2004 10:51:30 AM new
Ohhh, I get it now, Neroter... Marriage was invented by straight people so it's theirs to play with. Rather a sandbox-selfish idea, that:
Little Johnny, age 4: No, it's my toy shovel!
Little Susie, age 4: Can't we share?
Little Johnny, after carefully considering all the ramifications of letting a playmate scoop sand with his shovel determines that he will lose nothing in the process while furthering the goodwill he and Susie have otherwise enjoyed.
That's a four-year-old for you...
posted on February 16, 2004 11:02:25 AM new
Neroter, nobody's trying to get anyone to change their views, just presenting different ways of looking at things. There's nothing wrong with being a traditionalist, but when traditional values are based on nothing more than some archaic laws, which some here have admitted to, AND hate, which some make more obvious than others, people here will speak up. Hate isn't tolerated here.
P.S. "Lionda", I don't feel your posts are hate based.
posted on February 16, 2004 11:15:10 AM new
KD - Thank you.
but when traditional values are based on nothing more than some archaic laws. These aren't archaic laws, but this is the way it has been since our nation was formed.
The laws are really pretty recent, showing the majority of Americans still support marriage as meaning one man and one woman....and don't see it the same way the 'movement' does.
I also am quite aware that quite a few here who do not support the meaning of marriage remaining the way it always has been, are un-married themselves.
----------------------
Yes, I very much agree, neroter12. Well said. Are you an arbitrator in real life? You present both sides very well and someone like yourself just might be able to bring an issue like this to a mutually agreed upon solution.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 16, 2004 11:17 AM ]
posted on February 16, 2004 11:34:39 AM new
Logan, in my POV, you are wasting your breath if you think posting here is going convert Linda or Twelve, or millions of hetero's who disagree with you, to your way of thinking because you are throwing around constitutional jargon open to interpretation from the wording or lack thereof it.
I am not here trying to convert anyone. I was mearly presenting rebuttal statements to their views of why they are against gay marriages. Linda brought up some interesting arguments of why she was opposed. I wanted to find out the reasons why most straight people are "fearful" of gay marriages. She has her views just like I have mine. Twelve, what can I say about him, except that he is homophobic and narrow minded. It is his kind of thinking that only perpetuates the dislike of gays.
Traditions can be changed..its only a matter of time
They dont WANT the tradition changed.
Don't you get that?
Who says they have to want that? Any more than them saying We WANT YOU guys to give up this gender bending behavior and get with the program. Whats your answer to that? Well,we dont WANT to and its not happening.
That is why this issue will not die. They are fearful that society will go to he** . All because of the gays in this world. If they stop to look around society has changed since they were kids. Every time an issue arises that is against what people have been used to – what they construde as being normal – they take issue with it and complain that it will destroy society. And when the law has been changed nothing bad became of it.
But people in this country still have the the right to say, I dont like that, I dont want it, and I dont want my children to have the impression this is wholesome, because I DONT THINK IT IS. You, Logon, WANT THEM to change what they think and feel because its suits your agenda. It doesnt really effect you for them to change their mind on it does it?
No I don’t want them to change their views because it suits my agenda. They can still believe what they want as long as they are willing to accept that their views are not the only views. The entire point is whether this is discrimination. Who are you or the government to say being homosexual is wrong, a sin, immoral. Your statement above only pushes the straight man’s “agenda” that homosexuality is wrong and if you don’t like it tough. It is the straight man that can’t tolerate someone’s way of life simply because they feel it is wrong and immoral. Is it because the straight man doesn’t want to be in the minority, feel powerless?
I don’t believe in abortion, but do you see me telling women they are going to burn in he** for killing their child. NO, I accept the fact they can do what they want to their bodies and live with the consequences of their actions. God will be the ultimate judge for them when the times come.
You keep comparing it to black civil rights. I dont think it compares at all. Gay people are not dis-permitted the right to use a public bathroom. They are free to do anything and everything they want, including having their relationships and families.
No, I disagree with you on this issue. You can compare it to the black rights movement, women’s right movement, the Salem Witch trials or the Americans with disabilities "movement”. It has to do with discrimination and equal treatment, plain and simple. If your last sentence is true then why do not all states give benefits to spouses of gay employees and why can't gays serve openly in the military. After all gays are "free to anything and everything they want."
I think its still just a validation stamp wanted from the govt, from the heteros. But if you dont get it, does that in any way hamper or endanger such a committed relationship anyway? If so then you're saying this should be granted because its a lock-in excuse for a sham marriage, like heteros have?
If by “validation stamp” you mean to be treated equally and not discriminated upon, to have the same rights as a heterosexual marriage then yes I would agree that is what I would be looking for. I furthermore do not like politicians telling me what I can and can’t do in the privacy of my home.
Have your partnership contract, but don’t take away the rights of the hetros to call marriage their institution of a man a woman, a mother a father and a family. Its not. What you guys want to call the same thing is different. Somebody needs to admit that.
Again I disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion and I accept the fact you and I will disagree. Marriage is defined as an institution of a man, a woman, a mother, a father and a family because that is the way it always has been defined. Straight people have to first look at themselves. They have put their “religious tradition/institution” on such a high altar and think what they have is so holier than now - that only a married mother and father can raise a child properly. If this is true than how can you explain the lower marriage rate, a divorce rate that has doubled in the past couple of decades and more and more couple living together and raising children without being married?
Straight people can have their “marriage term”, I just want to be treated equally and have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. Until you are in a minority’s “shoes”, you will not know what it is like to be discriminated upon.
In my opinion, this issue will not be settled by you, me, on this board, nor will it be settled in California or Massachusetts. It will be eventually be settled by the Supreme Court of the United States and what their interpretation of separate and equal is when it comes to marriage.
Until then the only thing we have to fear,is fear itself.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 16, 2004 11:44:12 AM newThey can still believe what they want as long as they are willing to accept that their views are not the only views.
Since we're speaking of 'views'.....As I've said before....until and unless the laws are changed....after challenges all the way to the USSC the MAJORITY of American's HAVE spoken their views on this subject. The view of the majority, at this time, is it stays the way it is.
posted on February 16, 2004 12:53:49 PM new
Here's something just for you, linda about majority.
Bad Moves: Fallacies of democracy
By Julian Baggini
"I don't think we have been consulted as a democracy. It is the wrong war. We need a bit more imagination. All we are saying is the country is mature enough to sit down and have some kind of referendum."
Damon Albarn, lead singer of Blur (Source: the Guardian, 21 January 2003)
Readers of last week's column will not be surprised to find a rock singer once again cited as an authority on matters unconnected with music. The concern here, however, is not with Albarn's expertise but with the climate of opinion he reflected. For during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, his view was one which was held by a great many of the British public. Since polls showed a majority of people against going to war with Iraq, it was common to hear people claim that to engage in such a conflict would be undemocratic.
Even though once the conflict began opinion polls started to turn in favour of military action, this post facto change of heart doesn't affect the main argument of the "war was undemocratic" camp. They could, and still do, argue that to start a war in defiance of the wishes of the British people was profoundly undemocratic.
This argument is flawed in several respects. If it is premised on the view that majority opinion is always right, then it is clearly falling foul of the "democratic fallacy", since it is just not true that beliefs become true or false on the basis of how many people hold them.
This crude fallacy is obviously not what most people have in mind when they claim Britain's involvement in the second Iraq war is undemocratic. However, simply acknowledging that public opinion can be wrong immediately exposes the weakness of the other arguments that war was an affront against democracy.
For instance, one can accept that the majority can be wrong but insist that, nevertheless, in a democracy majority opinion must be followed, for better or for worse. But this confuses democracy with simple majoritarianism. As defined by Merriam-Webster, a democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." A crude majoritarian system, in contrast, is one where the government always does what the majority wants.
Most democracies are not majoritarian. If Britain were run on majoritarian lines, for example, then fox hunting would have been banned long ago and capital punishment would never had been abolished. In other words, Britain would be a country which killed more people but fewer animals.
Majoritarianism is not the favoured system in the west for several reasons. One is to protect minorities. Another is rooted in an appreciation of the democratic fallacy: majorities are often wrong, and they are much more likely to be wrong when they are uninformed about the issue to hand, as they often are when detailed knowledge is required to make a wise decision. This is why Britain, like other western nations, runs on the model of a representative democracy. In this system, members of parliament are elected as representatives to make decisions on behalf of their electors, not as delegates to do whatever their electors tell them. They are held to account every four to five years at elections, when they are judged on their overall record.
It therefore cannot be said to be undemocratic for parliament to act against the wishes of the majority of the population at any given time. This very possibility is just what distinguishes representative democracies from majoritarian regimes. The British Parliament, elected by the people, made a decision to go to war and members of that parliament will be re-elected or voted out by the people at the next election. That is paradigmatically democratic.
Of course, the democratic fallacy would appear in another guise if we argued that decisions reached by this process were always right. But the argument here is not directly about whether it was right or wrong to go to war with Iraq, but whether it was democratic to do so. This charge cannot be made to stick.
An interesting coda to this story is how public opinion has changed over time. In February 2003 the Guardian was able to report that only 29% of the British public supported a war on Iraq. By mid-April, following the fall of Baghdad, support had risen to 63%. Arguably, this shows how the fickleness of public opinion is another good reason why genuinely democratic governments cannot and should not always follow it.
Julian Baggini is editor of The Philosophers' Magazine.
posted on February 16, 2004 01:12:03 PM new
Linda:
They can still believe what they want as long as they are willing to accept that their views are not the only views.
Since we're speaking of 'views'.....As I've said before....until and unless the laws are changed....after challenges all the way to the USSC the MAJORITY of American's HAVE spoken their views on this subject. The view of the majority, at this time, is it stays the way it is.
The only true way to know what the majority views would be to put a question like this on the November ballot. I am not saying any action should be taken once the votes are tallied, but this is only way I feel a true representation can be achieved. Opinion polls may not get a true cross representation of the population. Petition sites can be misleading as people can vote often or list the names of dead people
If the vote comes back 50/50 or 51/49 what does that really tell you? That the country is still equally divided on the issue
Would you be in favor of deciding this by using the electoral college method? After all Bush did not receive the majority (popular) vote in 2000, but look where he is today.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 16, 2004 01:25:19 PM new
You notice Linda that none of the anti-majority views were discussed when we went to War with Iraq... all you heard was President Bush was ignoring the will of the people...
LOL just proves how wishy washy they actually are.
posted on February 16, 2004 01:43:49 PM new
Yes, twelve, it's usually that way here.
----------
logansdad - The only true way to know what the majority views would be to put a question like this on the November ballot. I wonder if this was along the line of what neroter12 said to me.
In our country we elect those who hold views we support. Under our laws they are given the authority to vote *for us*. And yes, there are times when hot issues are put up for the voters to make the decision. I, personally, would like to see more of that.
So....in that way I'd agree with you about putting it to a vote of the people. The problem with doing that is IF we did it on one issue, we'd need to do it on all. And we can only begin to imagine the expense that would involve.
But you speak of polls...etc. I think you're not looking at the fact that 38 states, so far, want this tradition to continue as it has. Under our system of govenment those passed 'laws' speak for the people of those states and, in whole, for the majority of American's.
But again, I do agree and would like to see more of the divisive issues put to a vote of the people. But...I also understand that's not the way our system works. Most likely why I seem to support the 'majority' rule when it's something I agree with, and don't when it's something I don't agree with.
posted on February 16, 2004 05:04:10 PM new
Linda:
In our country we elect those who hold views we support.
That is true and that is what is supposed to happen, but it seems once they are in office, then have their own agenda and say heck to the people who got them into office in the first place.
I would like to see an election where the voters choose none of the above or where a write in candidate wins.
But you speak of polls...etc. I think you're not looking at the fact that 38 states, so far, want this tradition to continue as it has.
While I can't disagree with you there, I think this entire debate of gay marriages and "the Defense of Marriage Act" was hastily rushed into based out of fear of the unknown and the uprooting of traditional "family values".
Do I think this debate will be solved in five years or ten years, probably not. But I would like to think that it will get resolved before I die.
Whatever the resolution will be, I can live with it. If it is a "marriage" in the hetero sense or a civil union or neither, I can at least enjoy the time I have with my loved one and nobody can take that away from me.
History has also shown me that nothing in this world is permanent. Views of a society change over time. I do hope at some point we can live in a society where discrimination does not exist and every one "can just get along".
Thanks for sharing your views.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 16, 2004 05:32:15 PM newBill Would Back N.H. Ban on Gay Marriage
Mon Feb 16, 1:30 PM ET
By NORMA LOVE, Associated Press Writer
CONCORD, N.H. - Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire, where same-sex marriage is already illegal, are pushing a proposal that would allow the state to disregard gay unions performed elsewhere.
The group of legislators points to neighboring Vermont and Massachusetts as reasons to pass the bill.
Vermont allows a domestic partnership arrangement called civil unions and Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Gays will be able to get married in Massachusetts beginning May 17.
In New Hampshire, "We felt we were squeezed in the middle," said state Rep. Robert Letourneau, one of the bill's sponsors.
The bill, which comes up for a committee hearing Tuesday, would reinforce the state's gay marriage ban and state that gay unions performed outside New Hampshire have no standing within the state. It would also make Vermont-style civil unions illegal in New Hampshire.
State Sen. Russell Prescott, the bill's prime sponsor, insists that current law does not explicitly invalidate same-sex marriages if legal in other states. "We felt we needed to do that more clearly," he said.
The bill deals only with the definition of marriage; not with rights and benefits for same-sex couples.
Gov. Craig Benson, a Republican, supports the bill and said Friday he supports banning civil unions as well as gay marriage. "It seems to me it's the same thing called by a different name," he said.
posted on February 16, 2004 05:39:18 PM new
logansdad - but it seems once they are in office, then have their own agenda and say heck to the people who got them into office in the first place.
Another thing we can agree upon.
I would like to see an election where the voters choose none of the above or where a write in candidate wins.
That's one of the reason's I've voted for the third part candidates more than once. I've even voted for democrats, believe it or not. Now I realize I'm just throwing my vote away by doing that. So I choose the side that most represents my values and views on the issues.
I wish you and your loved one only the best and much happiness. And thank you too, for sharing your views....even if we are on opposite sides of this issue.
You present both sides very well and someone like yourself just might be able to bring an issue like this to a mutually agreed upon solution.