I offer the following purely as a thought experiment. I suppose it’s more of a leftward proposal, and, thus may be deemed unsuitable for this blog. I’m hoping that it may be viewed simply as a theoretical proposal to initiate thoughtful discussion of pros and cons.

I think that it would be advantageous to form some sort of global confederation of the primary English-speaking nations:

UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ. We all have a similar heritage and basically compatible cultures. Sure, we are the most conservative of the bunch, but not so much more so that we are an odd man out. We’ve certainly got more in common with Canadians, Brits, Kiwis, and Aussies than Germans have with the French, Italians, and Spaniards.

Together, we’d have the economic clout to stay ahead of China as well as enjoy a large advantage in natural resources, arable farmland, marine resources, etc.

I wish that there were some bold political leaders who have the capacity to think ahead to what is happening to the world.

Consolidation. It’s been happening in corporate America for the past 20 years. I think that we’d benefit on a forward-looking geopolitical level by doing the same.

1. I’m in favor of gays having equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities, with respect to traditional marriage, with the proviso that the new institution of same sex unions should be recognized (by government) by a name other than “marriage.” Gays are creating a new institution, and they should give this institution a new name.

2. Traditional, opposite-sex marriage (potentially applicable to the 97% of the population which is  not gay) serves the interests of the individual and society by (a) fostering an environment for child-rearing (presence of mother and father) which benefits children, (b) laying down rules of behavior, grounded in loyalty and fidelity, which are especially important in stabilizing the inherently unequal relationship between an opposite sex couple, (c) removing the married couple from the reservoir fostering the perpetuation and transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Elements of #2 obviously apply to same sex couples, but the benefits of marriage are particularly important to opposite sex couples because of (a) the issue of child-rearing in a mother/father household and (b) the much greater degree of biological inequality between opposite sex couples. Additionally, the marriage institution of critical importance for the 97% of the population which is not gay. Although the 3% which is gay deserves reasonable accommodation in the interests of non-discrimination and equal protection, this accommodation should not threaten the institution which is of critical importance to the 97%.

A useful precedent is the principle of reasonable accommodation in employment of disabled people, e.g.

Reasonable accommodation

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to a job, an employment practice, or the work environment that makes it possible for a qualified individual with a disability to enjoy an equal employment opportunity.

A reasonable accommodation for gay people would be to create an institution precisely analogous to traditional marriage, but to call it by a different name, to recognize the reality that there are different considerations (and a different dynamic) between the union of opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.

3. In what ways do eliminating the distinction between opposite sex and same sex unions threaten the institution of traditional marriage?

There is the potential for both short term and long term untoward effects.

In the first place, the reality is that the concept of homosexual marriage is absurd to a great many people, for reasons of entirely-valid biological obviousness (recognizing also — but giving absolutely no deference to — the obvious state of affairs that a great deal of true homophobia does exit, based on both religious and non-religious views).

In the second place, the institution of traditional marriage was developed over millennia to meet basic needs central to opposite sex couples. The pervasive universality of traditional marriage attests to the essential role of this institution in human existence and human progress. In Western Civilization, developing from the Code of Hammurabi and the Abrahamic religions, the condemnation of adultery became ingrained, along the importance of fidelity in the marriage vows. Thus, the concept of fidelity is of central importance in traditional marriage.

In Perry v Schwartzenegger (the California Proposition 8 gay marriage case) Judge Vaughn Walker’s arguments supporting his decision were based, to a large extent, on his “findings of fact” that gay marriage would not threaten traditional marriage.  But his findings were based on the cases and evidence presented by incompetent lawyers supporting Proposition 8.  These lawyers failed to offer the most relevant arguments, failed to present the most relevant evidence, and failed to call competent expert witnesses (one of Judge Walker’s “findings of fact” were that the two pro-Prop 8 expert witnesses were incompetent).

Judge Walker made a number of assertions, for starters:

Walker #1. Definition of marriage:

“Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”

Comment: According to Walker’s definition, all which is required is commitment to remain together; there is nothing at all about fidelity. Walker ignored a central tenet of  the marriage contract which has existed since Hammurabi (secular) and Abraham (religious).

The gay view of marriage is different from the traditional view.

Sexual Agreements among Gay Male Couples

Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret

“A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

“New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

“That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

For a very constructive consideration of the central importance of fidelity in marriage, and of differences between straight and gay attitudes towards the concept of fidelity, I strongly recommend the writings on the topic by a very thoughtful gay blogger, B. Daniel Blatt:

Casual sex for single gay men: barrier to finding LTR?

Fidelity is much more important in opposite sex relationships than in same sex relationships, because of the inherently unequal biological (including emotional) states of men on one hand and women on the other. Marriage imposes a set of rules which levels the playing field.  The success of traditional marriage in so doing is quite remarkable. The average first marriage endures for more than two decades. In 80% of marriages, there is no infidelity and, in the remainder, the average number of partners outside of the marriage, over the entire course of the marriage, is 1.

One major societal benefit of traditional marriage is that it removes huge numbers of people of both genders from the reservoir which fosters the spread of sexually transmitted diseases — for an average of at least two decades, during the most sexually active period of most people’s lives (as an aside, no degree of political correctness should be allowed to obfuscate the inconvenient public health truths supporting the continuing prohibition of gays from serving as blood donors).  Anything which would threaten this societal benefit of marriage for the 97% of people who are not gay, which has survived the test of time for millennia, deserves a much more careful degree of scrutiny than was possible, given the inept case presented by the pro-Prop 8 lawyers.

Continuing with Judge Walker’s assertions:

Walker #2. He stated that “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex relationships.”

This conclusion is breathtaking in its certitude, given that gay marriage has only existed as an institution since 2001 (in the Netherlands) and it will take more than a generation to determine the ultimate impact of the reality of gay marriage on societal attitudes toward traditional marriage.

The conservative writer Stanley Kurtz has presented an argument that the experience in the Netherlands is already showing signs of adversely affecting traditional marriage:

Smoking Gun

Kurtz, of course, has been roundly criticized by gay marriage advocates, who find other factors than gay marriage to explain the grim statistics he presents.  Here’s an example of a particularly cogent challenge to Kurtz:

Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?

There’s a big problem, though.  Scandinavia didn’t have “true” gay marriage until very recently.  Denmark, the alleged poster child for the long-term “success” of gay marriage, also didn’t have true gay marriage until very recently.  What Denmark had were registered partnerships for same sex couples.  These were not called marriages.  In point of fact, the Danish experience is strongly supportive of my central arguments on this issue, which are, again, that same sex couples deserve equal rights, but same sex “unions” should not be called “marriage.”

Further supporting my point of view on this is the very best study to date (the “best evidence”).

The effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands

Note that the above-referenced study received a prestigious award, attesting to its peer-review credibility:

2008 Best Comparative Paper Presented at an APPAM Research Conference

Here’s what makes the study so important:

A. The study actually had a valid control (lacking in every other study to date).

B. The study examined the effect of both registered partnerships (civil unions) and “true” same sex marriage in the same country, and, thus, was capable of comparing and contrasting the effects of both civil unions and same sex marriages on traditional marriage.

The methodology was straightforward and convincing.  Differences were statistically significant. The validity of the control was, itself, internally controlled and confirmed.

The findings were as follows:

A. Civil unions did not adversely affect the marriage rate (confirming the longer Danish experience with civil unions, cited above).

B. Gay marriages did adversely affect the marriage rate (reduce the number of opposite sex couples entering into marriage).

It is very important to note that we are still in the very early stages of the gay marriage experiment (even in the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been in existence for the longest period of time).  That fact that statistically significant adverse effects are being observed at such an early time period (first 5 years), in a well controlled study, destroys Judge Walker’s conclusion that the existence of gay marriage does not change societal views of traditional marriage.  Again, this isn’t an indictment of Walker as an “activist judge.”  Walker was simply being an umpire, calling balls and strikes, in the pitches thrown for his inspection.  The pro-Prop 8 lawyers were, again, incompetent in presenting such an incomplete and poorly supported case.

Let’s conclude with other important findings of fact, made by Walker:

Walker #3. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment” and “having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”

These latter conclusions were based on studies of small numbers of families with limited follow-up, for example:

Gay Parents Do Not Warp Their Kids, Research Shows

“And having gay parents doesn’t make children gay themselves, she [the study author] tells the newspaper. There is no indication in her research, she says, that suggests children’s sexual preferences are determined by their parents.

“Some don’t agree. Sociologist Tim Biblarz of the University of Southern California tells USA Today that there have not been enough long-term, large-scale research projects to definitively say what effect the sexual orientation of parents has on children.”

I want to conclude by considering the issue of nature versus nurture, with respect to sexual orientation.  I think it’s obvious that there is a strong nurture component.  The best existing evidence is found in the identical twin studies.

Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs

Basically, in pairs of identical twins with at least one homosexual, in 68% of cases the other identical twin was NOT homosexual!  In comparison, in control groups consisting of non-identical twins and non-twin sibling pairs, in 79% of cases with at least one homosexual, the other sibling was NOT homosexual.  The overall incidence of homosexuality among all subjects in the study as 2.9%.  The differences between sexual orientation concordance between identical twins and non-identical siblings were NOT statistically significant.  The differences between the incidence of homosexuality in all study participants (2.9%) and in non-identical siblings from pairs with at least one homosexual (21%) was highly significant.

These data constitute the best existing evidence concerning the question of nature versus nurture regarding sexual orientation, and they support of a very strong role for nurture, to state it very conservatively. These data relate directly to Judge Walker’s claim that the gender composition of a pair of parents can be confidently stated to have no adverse influence on a child’s “adjustment” (Walker’s word).  The data simply are not there to support Judge Walker’s assertion.  I will not attempt to argue that gay sexual orientation represents a state of mal-”adjustment.”  I will state that gay sexual orientation presents sufficient problems (including those of exposure to infectious disease) for the average person to justify a parent’s wish to raise a child in a societal environment which does not increase the likelihood of imprinting gay ideation.

I conclude that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, including reasonable accommodation in recognition of actual physical differences (including most certainly the gender composition of committed couples).  I conclude that reasonable accommodation should not include increasing entirely-avoidable risks to society, women, and children.  Granting same sex couples equal rights and protections under the law, and applying a term other than “marriage” to same sex unions would best serve the needs of the individuals (and their rights, under the Constitution) and the equally compelling interests of society.

Larry Weisenthal

A decision by a Federal judge in the California Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) aftermath is an ominous canary in the coal mine for free speech.

Our democracy depends on transparent, open speech. In the 15 years that I’ve been an active participant in Internet discussion groups, I have always signed my own name, because I believe that the First Amendment is meaningless, if citizens cannot openly express their ideas, without fear of reprisals. Only in totalitarian states must the citizenry resort to anonymous forms of communication.

I know that the vast majority of people who comment on the blogosphere do wish to maintain their anonymity. It’s not my intention in this post to debate whether or not this is good or bad for a democracy. But one of the most important areas of political speech is that of money donated to support candidates or ideas or ballot measures. The question is this: should people be allowed to contribute money anonymously, as they are allowed to state ideas anonymously?

The federal judge in the California Proposition 8 case has just ruled that political donors have no right to privacy.

Basically, what has happened is this. In the November election, California’s Proposition 8, essentially banning same sex marriage, passed by a margin of 52% – 48%. After the election, opponents of Proposition 8 were outraged, and began to target supporters of Proposition 8 with various types of harassment, which ranged from picketing and boycotts of churches and businesses to personal confrontations at the level of individuals, e.g.

In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”

In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.

I am one of the many Californians who voted for Barack Obama but who also voted for Proposition 8. I explained my reasons for doing so (voting for Proposition in a previous Flopping Aces blogpost back in November, 2008:

The issue here is not the merits of Proposition 8, but a chilling new tactic which could be applied broadly, to any political issue at all. This is the concept of compiling computer lists of campaign donors from public records and organizing a targeted campaign of personal and/or economic harassment. This could have a chilling effect on political contributions, which is a constitutionally-protected form of political speech. This threat always existed, but I don’t recall it being utilized in the way it is being utilized against Proposition 8 supporters.

As I write this, I don’t know the answer. I think that transparency in the political arena is very important, which is, once again, the reason I always sign my name to my various political writings. On the other hand, the ability to do so depends upon my fellow citizens respecting the concept of the honest difference of opinion and not targeting me for personal harassment. This is the sort of thing which one reads about in totalitarian regimes, such as in Iran, where the Iranian regime has targeted Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi.

Although we hopefully needn’t fear government harassment for our political views, the potential for harassment by private political vigilantes is a grave threat to free speech, in my opinion.

I’d like to explain how it is that a (mostly) liberal like me can be against same-sex “marriage.”

Right now, there is a raging protest going on over the passing of California’s Proposition 8, which was a California constitutional amendment to ban same sex “marriage.”

What is bothering me and what is motivating me to write this, is that I don’t think that anyone, on either side, is discussing what is really the most important point to this debate (to be described below). On one side, gay “marriage” proponents are trying to make this into a civil rights issue. Gays are being denied some sort of basic human right, in violation of all which is just and good. On the other side, there is too much of a religious connotation. The main people speaking up are religious people, who too often talk about the “sanctity” of marriage and otherwise discuss it in a religious context. It did not help that the major financial supporter of Prop 8 was the Mormon Church.

Here’s what I think are the most important issues. Marriage has endured as an institution for thousands of years for one main reason. The institution of marriage greatly improves the behavior of men, who would otherwise have a tendency to abandon women and children, who depend upon men for protection, shelter, and sustenance. This was always a societal responsibility. Fathers were responsible for the care of their daughters; the fathers paid a dowry to grooms as part of passing along the responsibility of caring for a woman from one man to another. The new husband accepted this dowry as part of a societal contract.

Fast forwarding to present day, most women no longer require such protection and care. Women are, in most cases, perfectly capable of caring for both themselves and their children. But it’s more of a struggle, and children from two parent households have clear cut advantages, as shown by considerable and compelling research. And, in two parent households, happiness and harmony are greatly facilitated by fidelity, and the institution of marriage continues to do a very good job of preventing most men from behaving too badly.

Supporters of same sex “marriage” are fond of tearing down the institution of traditional marriage with misleading statistics. The fact is that the average first marriage endures for more than two decades. A marriage which lasts 20 years or more is a success. It takes the married couple well into middle age and past most of the child rearing years. Most traditional marriages are, in this respect, a success.

Why does traditional marriage succeed? Because it is a very big deal, even in non-religious couples. Marriage has such a long and esteemed tradition. It is more than a social contract. It is more than a civil right. The very definition of marriage connotes “til death do us part.” It doesn’t matter that many marriages do not make it to this ultimate end. This is the goal of marriage, in the minds of most who enter into it. It is the biggest and most important commitment that most people ever make.

The average male in a “committed” gay relationship has 6 partners per year outside of the relationship. In the mind of many – if not most – heterosexual males, the concept of gay marriage is a joke. This is probably unfair and more than a little cruel, but it has it origins in the notorious promiscuity of gay relationships, even in supposedly “committed” gay relationships. It is the antithesis of marriage, which is fundamentally based in commitment. The average partner in a traditional marriage doesn’t have relationships outside the marriage. For the substantial minority who do have affairs outside of the marriage, it is on the order of one or two such affairs, over the course of decades or a lifetime. The point is that the institution of traditional marriage does a very good job, indeed, of keeping most men from behaving too badly, to the advantage of women and the well-being of children.

If same sex “marriage” becomes a matter of official government recognition, this will cheapen the concept of traditional marriage as being the most serious of life’s commitments. This won’t happen immediately, but, over the course of a generation, this will be the effect. Marriage will no longer be a “big deal,” it will be just another contract, to be dissolved more easily than it was formed. The average first marriage will no longer endure for more than two decades. More wives will be turned into single mothers. More children will be raised in one parent households.

The Netherlands experience is, to date, very controversial. Gay “marriage” has been in force of law only since 2002. I personally think that the statistics are strongly suggestive of a very adverse effect of the existence of same sex marriage on the degree to which traditional marriage is surviving as an institution in the Netherlands, but it will take more than a generation to have clear data on the ultimate, full effect. By then, it will have been too late. I think that the institution of traditional marriage will have been irreparably damaged, at least among secular people, again, to the disproportionate disadvantage of women and children.

Being a good liberal, I support everything else in the gay agenda. I’m for tenant rights and employment rights. I’m for ending all restrictions against gays serving in the military. I’m in favor of domestic partnerships, conveying on couples the same legal rights, advantages, and responsibilities which exist in the case of marriage. This is right and fair and it should take away every argument that non-government recognition of same sex “marriage” is in any way a violation of human rights, civil rights, or any other “rights.” Gays can call it whatever they wish. They can say that they are married. They can have ceremonies in church or any other institution which voluntarily agrees to host such ceremonies. They can go on honeymoons. They can privately use whatever descriptive terms or names they wish.

Just don’t have government refer to it officially as “marriage.” Marriage is a word which connotes a commitment of a man and a woman to be faithful to each other “til death do us part.” It is a human tradition going back millenia. Same sex “marriage” has briefly existed at various periods in the past. But only as a historical curiosity.

What is needed is simply a new name for what gays hope will become a new and enduring institution.

Men and women are different. They use different rest rooms. They have different rules in competitive athletics. They have different sexual functions. They often wear different types of clothes. They are separate but equal people, who already have separate but equal institutions.

Same sex couples who wish to make commitments should have their own separate but equal institution. Equal rights does not mean the blurring of important semantic distinctions. And that’s all the fuss is about. It has nothing at all to do with basic human rights or civil rights or equality under the law. It’s a war being fought over semantics. Trivial, on its face, but with important implications especially for women and children.